When The President questions constitutional right of a citizen

Kneeling of some NFL players during the national anthem created quite a bit of controversy last year. President Trump's recent speech and tweets injected fresh life into this controversy once again. NFL player Colin Kaepernick started protesting by kneeling during the national anthem last year, his reason for the protest was police brutality and inequality faced by people of color. Now, we may or may not agree with his reasons or the way of protest, but, if he is exercising his constitutional rights to express himself, we need to respect his rights, without agreeing with his actions. I personally stand for any national anthem played during any function, but it is also true that no one can compel me to stand for it unless I want to stand. I voluntarily respect national anthems of all countries and it is my individual right to choose if I want to stand or not. Real respect has to be earned, it should be spontaneous and not forced or coerced. If someone is coerced to show respect for anything, it is not a display of respect, it is obedience. Obedience out of fear of losing something is not respect. Do we really want such respect from anyone?  

A few years back, during one of the functions at my daughter's school American national anthem was played, and in the entire auditorium, one third grader was sitting during the national anthem. I was surprised to see this, as I was not used to witnessing anything like this. In India, I was used to seeing everyone standing for the national anthem and prayers. It was a rule and there used to be a strict punishment for violating that rule. There was no choice or freedom for students. I was impressed by the way the individual liberty of that student was respected in this country (he was just a third grader). I really got curious about this incident, and when I read more about constitutional rights, I came to know that many expressions are protected under the First Amendment and the freedom to protest is one of them. In one of the very pivotal Supreme Court decisions (Texas v. Johnson), the Supreme Court held that burning the national flag during a political protest was a protected expression under the First Amendment. 

Now, when the President of the country questions NFL players' right to protest and asks the owners of the team to fire them for exercising their constitutional right, that too when he does that using very derogatory language and abusing their mothers, it is really sad. It poses a very serious question, if the President of the country won't respect the constitutional rights of its citizens then who else will? Of course, Mr. Trump has the right to express himself under the same constitutional provision under which these players have that right. People should respect the President's right to express himself, but it is also true that every position or job comes with certain obligations and responsibilities, and definitely, the US President's job comes with a lot of responsibilities and obligations. As a President of a country like the USA, Mr. Trump has the responsibility to uphold the core values and principles of this great country. Individual liberty and respect for constitutional rights are part of the core identity of the USA, and if anyone dilutes these rights, this great nation might lose its unique identity. We need to respect others' rights not only when we agree with them, but especially when there is a serious disagreement, that is when our respect for others' rights is really tested. I hope President Trump understands this, he may not agree with the choice of method to protest of these NFL players, but he should stand to protect their constitutional rights. If not, then tomorrow our constitutional rights will be abridged. Please remember, we need to protect other's rights so that our rights also remain protected.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]    

Men need to save themselves

"Men need to save themselves," my friend, Anand Pawar said in one of his interviews related to gender issues. He is an expert on gender-related issues, and I learned so many things about this subject during my interactions with him. This particular line resonated with me a lot because I saw men (including myself) struggling under a burden to fulfill the expectations of society, their family, and their own expectations. The definition of masculinity is very stereotyped in most of the societies. Men need to fit into that definition, and if they don't, they struggle with social and personal contempt, rejection, frustration, and many other things. Many men put themselves under this burden of expectations that their society or culture hands over to them, and there is no easy way for them to escape this trap. Very few dare to challenge the stereotypes or traditional definitions of masculinity. Men really need to save themselves from this burden. It is crushing many of them, and only they can help themselves to break free from its shackles.

Expectations and traditional notions about gender roles are embedded in our social culture. These norms are part of many cultures. We don't have to choose them as we are born into these traditions. Some of these things have been part of traditions for so long that they have become sacrosanct principles. This is the very reason why even after feeling the burden of these expectations very few dare to challenge them, or worse, very few even feel that these are unnecessary or burdensome expectations. But, because of people like Anand, these definitions are being challenged. I know Anand personally that's why I am mentioning his name, I am sure that there are quite a few people like him who are working in this area to help men come out of this prison of patriarchal culture, and I appreciate all these efforts. It is a wrong notion to assume that patriarchy only hurts women. In reality, it equally hurts men, they just don't realize it. Patriarchy puts an unjustified burden on women by putting so many restrictions on them, at the same time, it also puts a burden of so many unreasonable expectations on men. In the end, it results in a society where both men and women live under some kind of burden of expectations, which they can't reject even if they want to. Their roles get rigidly defined and the scope of the exchange of duties is nonexistent.

What is the solution to this complex problem? The only way is to challenge the traditional notions of masculinity and femininity. A woman can be a bread earner of a family and a man can be a stay-at-home dad. There is nothing shameful if your wife earns more than you. Women should get equal rights to choose what they want to wear, and women don't have to carry the burden of sacrificing their interests for the sake of their families. A woman's career is as important as a man's. There are so many things that one can add to this list, but I guess you now know what I mean. The central point is, don't define gender roles rigidly, a suitable person in the family or society should perform the available role, their gender should not be a factor in deciding whether they qualify for it or not. Men don't have to live under the pressure of fulfilling the roles of a caretaker of the family, they can take whatever role they feel suits them, and it can be a role of house-husband or stay-at-home dad. I think the present generation is well equipped with all the tools it needs to tackle this problem. I am hopeful that they will do far better as far as achieving gender equality is concerned compared to my generation. Women have been challenging their stereotyped image for decades, and they are immensely successful in it. Now it is the time for men to challenge their stereotyped image because MEN NEED TO SAVE THEMSELVES.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]    

Charlottesville - Lessons to learn from this tragedy

Whatever transpired in Charlottesville on August 12th, 2017 should disturb any sensible person. It was not a pleasant sight to watch those violent protests. Peaceful protests and marches are an integral part of any democratic society. There is no doubt that everyone has a right to express their views and can do so in a legal and peaceful manner. As a supporter of freedom of expression, I agree with everyone's right to express their views on any topic, but this right to express doesn't involve the right to threaten or perpetrate violence against any group or person. This is why events in Charlottesville were very disturbing for me. The way mobs attacked each other was not the way to express your ideas. The way one man drove his car into the mob killing one innocent woman and injuring 19 others was an act of terrorism, no other word can be used to describe that murder. One can disagree with another's views or political ideology, but no matter how strong is the disagreement, no one has the right to attack anyone or even threaten anyone because of that disagreement. Three lives (one protester and two state troopers) were lost during these ugly protests, this should ring a warning bell in everyone's mind who is concerned about this country. Is this the way we want to move forward? Are we going to learn any lessons moving forward after this tragedy or still we are going to get consumed by our political ideology and hatred?

Hatred propagated by white supremacists and neo-Nazis was disturbing, but President Trump's failure to condemn these groups specifically during the press conference after the incident was more disturbing. When, as a leader of a country someone fails to condemn a violent act that is an act of domestic terrorism just because the perpetrator was allegedly a supporter of that leader, it paints a very scary picture. This means the condemnation of any crime will be selective and based on the political or ideological positions of the perpetrators. This stuff happens in India all the time, and I am surprised to see it happen in the US also. Political and ideological disagreements are very common, I have seen them in the US all the time. I have seen pro-life and pro-choice supporters protesting side by side passionately trying to propagate their viewpoints. I have also seen them debating with each other very passionately, but I haven't seen them attacking each other due to ideological differences. Freedom to express and debate is a basic tenet of American society, and any erosion in this philosophy can prove very dangerous to the future of the USA. I hope everyone who loves this country realizes this danger and acts accordingly before it's too late.

Everyone is entitled to have their own opinion and express it on any public platform, it is their constitutional right. These opinions can be challenged and debated, but violence can't be an answer to resolve any disagreement. We can agree or disagree or condemn other's opinions, but we can't suppress their voices just because we don't like them. Freedom of expression is an important constitutional right granted by the First Amendment to everyone living in the USA and all Americans need to protect this valuable right. As a leader of the nation, the President should be upfront to condemn hatred propagated by White Supremacists and other related groups. He should not mince words while calling spade a spade, but sadly this didn't happen. All Americans need to learn a lesson from this ugly display of hatred by racist groups. Make sure you make your voices heard, make sure your President knows that hate-propagating groups will be challenged, and he needs to stand on the right side when there is a question of racism and bigotry. Make sure that love wins over hatred, and social fabric of this nation doesn't get destroyed by a few bad elements. Let's move forward with more resolve and determination to fight against discrimination, racism, hatred, and bigotry, this will be our true homage to all three people who died in Charlottesville on August 12.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]    

Diversity in communication

"She sounds very grumpy."
"Be careful while talking with him, he doesn't like to talk with people."
"You have a very strong Indian accent."

Many of us either make such statements or hear them daily during our day-to-day interactions with people around us. We all expect to have some homogeneity in our surroundings as far as communication styles are concerned. Most progressive societies welcome diversity of race, gender, and socioeconomic background; but when it comes to communication they want some homogeneity. Maybe this desire comes for the sake of maintaining clarity or making sure that the message is delivered effectively. In my family, my parents and I spoke different languages with each other. We perfectly understood each other, but never felt the need to communicate in the same language. I know this is not very common, but we managed to do it seamlessly. Actually, I never realized we were doing this until one day I realized this unique aspect of my family. My parents never forced their mother tongue on me, I also didn't insist that my kids should speak my mother tongue. My mother tongue is Marathi, and my wife's Bhojpuri, but our kids speak Hindi and English. They don't know either Marathi or Bhojpuri. Diversity in communication is not only a noticeable fact in today's world, but it is a need of today's world. Mobility of people has increased a lot, people move around the world for their education and employment, in search of a better and safer place. This results in a formation of very diverse societies. Such societies are not only diverse in race, culture, and religion but also in the ways people communicate with each other. 

Different people have different styles of communication. Some like to talk a lot, and some are very stringent with their speech. Some people are loud, and some are very soft-spoken. Everyone has some sort of accent, either it is a local accent or a nonlocal one, therefore, I never considered having an accent a barrier in communication. Our accent is our identity, that's the unique way we speak. I never tried to change my accent and never expected that someone else should change their accent just to sound familiar to my ears. In a same way, different people have different ways to express themselves. Some might appear aggressive, and some really mild. But, this doesn't mean that one way is better than the other. These all are different ways in which people choose to communicate with others. Each way has its own flavor and its own specialty. We should learn to enjoy this diversity rather than trying to bring forced homogeneity. Try to understand others, be patient, recognize the beauty of diversity in communication, and then you will start enjoying every accent and every style of communication. Diversity in communication is a very beautiful thing, as beautiful as diversity in opinions and diversity in population, let's embrace it.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

Be curious, it is immensely rewarding

Curiosity is one of the reasons why humans managed to advance so much compared to any other species on this planet. It is built into our minds, if our surroundings don't curb it, we can remain curious throughout our lives, but in reality, rarely this happens. Many things contribute to diminishing our curious nature as we grow older. Children are way more curious compared to adults, and many times the curious nature of adults is labeled as being childish. Maybe adults think that they know it all and there is no need to be curious anymore. I am fortunate enough not to fall into that group. I am gifted with a permanent curiosity, my curiosity remained fairly constant since my childhood, and this has played great dividends for me. I remember my kids used to watch a TV show "Curious George," a story of a curious monkey who used to land in various troubles due to his hyper-curious nature. I loved that show as I am also a curious person. My curiosity might have landed me in trouble on a few occasions, but by far it has benefited me way more than it put me in trouble. 

Curiosity helps me to remain active. I get interested in different things, some interests remain forever, and some wane with time and new interests replace them. This continuous flow of curiosity keeps me away from chronic boredom. It helps me to find something to read, watch, or do where I can learn something new, helps me to explore ideas or things that I have never done before. It helps me to study various issues including the opinions that I don't support or agree with. I can do all this because I am curious about many things including why people believe in certain ideologies, why they need religion, how science can help to solve our problems, what is the role of the law in our society, and many more things. My curiosity led me to read many different books, listen to many seminars, and research many topics. In this process, I got to know many amazing personalities, either through books, seminars, or personal interactions. I would not have known these people without my curiosity, many of them taught me things that I value a lot, and I credit my curiosity for all this. 

I encourage my kids to remain curious about various things and try to find answers on their own. I encourage them to make efforts to gather information before forming any opinion about any issue. We should not follow any path blindly, don't be a Hindu just because your parents were Hindu, don't be a Republican (in the USA) or Congress supporter (in India) just because your parents used to support that party. Do your own research, analyze things on your own, and then decide for yourself. This is a time-consuming process and a difficult route, but this is what I did, and this process has taught me many valuable lessons. The rewards of this process outweigh the difficulties associated with it. Remember, there is no substitute for hard work, readymade answers are easy to get, but they are not the product of your own mind. If you want to churn out something from your own mind, then you need to go through the repetitive process of collecting and processing vast amounts of information on your own, and without being curious one cannot perform this task enthusiastically. One of the lessons that I learned was that there can be many right answers for social and political issues, and there is no single ideology that can provide solutions for all the problems. This also taught me the importance of diversity of opinion, the importance of appreciating disagreement, and encouraging debate. One cannot appreciate or understand diverse opinions without being curious about them. One can allow counter opinions to exist by being tolerant, but to really benefit from the diversity of opinions and ideas one needs to be curious about the views and ideas that are not our own. 

My curiosity has taken to me new areas and exposed me to ideas and views to which I may not have been exposed if I had remained complacent. It prompted me to take risks and challenge my traditional surroundings and my own beliefs It encouraged me to charter a different path than what most people chose to follow. I am not claiming that everyone's curiosity will produce the same result, but if it makes you remain active and enthusiastic about life, why not give it a try? Be curious and be happy.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

Don't allow someone else to define the meaning of happiness for you

We all live under various psychological pressures. We have pressure from our family to perform certain duties and fulfill their expectations. We have pressure from society and from our peers to confirm their expectations, there is also pressure from social media, the pressure created by different advertisements, and different products marketed which seem to be necessary if we want to be happy, and so on. The point is, that someone is continuously telling us what to do to look beautiful, they want to explain to us what it means to be a cool person or a happy family. These things are explained in a very vivid and glossy way. Advertisements tell us how one should enjoy life, many vacation package-offering companies insist on why we need to go on vacations to strike a balance between work and life. These messages are very tempting and often irresistible, not easy to ignore as a lot of effort and research goes into making these advertisements. Many such things are going around us in the real world as well as the virtual world which try to define happiness for us. If you believe in all these things, then you have to have the latest phone to be cool, you should look a certain way and wear fashionable clothes to look beautiful, you need to have a certain type of body or complexion, you need to go on vacation to fancy places, buy a home, get a new car as your old one is junk, and the list can go on depending on your need to fit in. The question is do we really need others to define what it means to be happy for us?

Maybe many of us do need some advice about how to be happy as we may not know what we really want. In that case, these advertisements can be of help as they can help you to find something which you like. But, there is a catch, these advertisements are made by very talented professionals using the information from the research and data based on human behavior. This is why they are so compelling that you end up liking what advertisement makers want you to like, not what you really like. This whole process is very confusing because it is very difficult to figure out whether what we really want is a product of our own needs and desires, or a result of influence from all these external factors. Many people, including me fall for these tricks. We all are bombarded on social media with such messages, and our online search is continuously tracked, whether we are watching a movie or a TV we are continuously exposed to such messages that want us to do something or buy something. 

These messages are very useful if we use them to our advantage, but they are very problematic if we get consumed by them. When we start chasing the dreams designed by others for us, we may not get that feeling of fulfillment even after living that dream. It is better to spend time looking for our own needs and dreams rather than trying to be successful in society's eyes or in the eyes of people around us. At the same time, let me acknowledge that it is not easy to resist the pressure to fit in. It is not easy to walk a different path when most people around us try to follow the path paved by these consultants of happiness. I have learned to evaluate most of my needs and desires objectively to see if I really need them or if they are the product of pressure created by all the messages which my brain knowingly or unknowingly receives from my surroundings. Many times, I reject these things as I can't justify their presence in my life, and many times, I chase these ideas and try to fulfill those desires. Technically, I am not a minimalist. I don't own only what I need, but I do try to limit as much as possible as per my own wish. If the pressure to be a minimalist is created by some undue external guilt, then it is as bad as the pressure to buy something or to spend on something that you may not need but are buying just because everyone else has it. 

The pursuit of happiness was comparatively easy for our previous generation, for us it is more complex and it is going to be even more complex for our future generation. This is why we all need to come up with our individual plans to pursue our own happiness. Humans are complex organisms, and our happiness is even more complex (because our brain is a very complicated organ). It is not necessary that we all must enjoy or dislike the same things, our choices can vary a lot, and there is nothing wrong with it. Try to define your own happiness, don't let these external pressures dictate terms to you. Don't go on vacation unless you really want to go, there is nothing wrong with enjoying your work so much that you don't need a vacation. There is nothing wrong in loving your own body the way it is, or working out hard to change its shape, provided you are doing these things as per your own wish, and to make yourself happy. Don't allow your surroundings to define happiness and force you to work for it. Define your own style, your own happiness, needs, and desires yourself, and then take the help of people and resources around you to fulfill them. 

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

Sunita Deshpande - A woman who introduced me to feminism

People around me, especially Indians and even many of my American friends wonder why I am so passionate (and even sometimes adamant) about the issues related to gender equality and woman empowerment. Sometimes people ask, from where I was introduced to the concept of gender equality? My family in India thinks that it is because I came to the USA my traditional views about women got spoiled by the Western influence, but this is not at all true. The USA did influence me a lot, it helped in my understanding of concepts of liberty, freedom of expression, as well as feminism, but it didn't introduce me to all these ideas, especially feminism. I started expressing my views about gender equality before my daughter was born (in 2000), and I came to the USA in 2003. So, my immigration to the USA is not the reason for my feminist views, maybe it is the reason why I express those views so strongly, but the USA didn't introduce me to this idea.

India might claim pride in its glorious tradition of having a progressive and liberal society where individual freedom was celebrated and books like Mahabharata and Kamasutra were written, but today's India is completely different and has a lot to learn from developed countries about gender equality and individual rights. Gender equality didn't exist in the culture in which I grew up. There was complete male dominance. I can only think of two major reasons why my views are so radically different from the society in which I lived and the family in which I was born. These are also the reasons why I revolted against the male-dominated atmosphere around me. First, I saw a tremendous amount of suppression of women around me, and as a teenager, it affected me a lot. Women were treated differently than men, there were hardly any rights or freedom given to them, they were abused for no reason, and they were considered physical objects of lust and physical enjoyment. For the name's sake, society worshiped female goddesses, but when it came to equal rights for them, there were completely different standards. These things raised many doubts and questions in my mind. I always wondered why women don't revolt against this subjugation and discrimination. I was too young to know about the patriarchal culture, but all these things made me very uncomfortable and angry.

The second reason might shock many of you, it was a book by Sunita Deshpande. Yes, this lady introduced me to the concept of gender equality. When I read her book "Aahe Manohar Tari," (meaning: even though it's beautiful), I was blown off to know about a woman who was so independent, strong, and powerful to fight against the patriarchal system and live life on her own terms. The book is a very impressive and sincere narration of her own story. In a true sense, in her autobiography, she introduced me to the concept of feminism and I am very grateful to her for this. Since then, some other books, and my immigration to the USA confirmed those ideas and made them stronger. I am a flag bearer of gender equality, and I take immense pride in supporting this cause and this cause is a part of my identity. I am sure for everyone who supports the idea of gender equality there must have been some incident that triggered the thought process or some person who introduced them to this idea. In my case, it was Sunita Deshpande. Since then this idea has become part of me, and I have become part of this cause. 

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

The basic concept of "Liberty"

How do you explain the concept of liberty to anyone? Do we need to explain this term in today's world where we believe that humans have progressed so much that we all understand and respect individual rights? If we look around, I am sure we will find many occasions where the term liberty or freedom is used to curb human rights rather than to protect them. It is also true that many societies, like the USA, have shown tremendous progress towards creating an atmosphere where individual rights are respected considerably, but the basic concept of liberty is still very hard for many to get a complete grasp of. I agree that it is a difficult concept to grasp, it sounds very easy, but the real meaning of liberty is not that easy to fathom, especially if you are not exposed to the real benefits of it. I value individual freedom more than anything else and that is why the concept of liberty is so dear to me.

Liberty is a basic tenet of any progressive society. Human minds and efforts flourish when they have the freedom to think and express their thoughts. I got attracted to the concept of liberty when I realized the importance of having the ability to express my thoughts and live life on my own terms. The feeling of having individual freedom brought a radical change in my life and thinking, and I try my best to practice that within my own family. I sincerely believe that if we all create an environment of liberty within our homes, our society will automatically have individual liberty. The problem is, that most of us believe that our ideas, values, belief systems, religion, or political ideology are the best and others should also follow it, and if they don't follow then at least they should not criticize it. Without the freedom to criticize there can't be freedom to express. Criticism is one of the essential processes through which every idea and concept should go to prove its mantle. 

Actually, the basic concept of liberty is very simple. If you care and value your own individual rights, then you should equally care and value other's individual rights also. Unless other's rights are not protected, there is no guarantee that your rights will remain protected. I and my wife are poles apart as far as our religious and social views are concerned, but her freedom to practice the religion of her choice is equally important in our home as much as my freedom not to practice or even criticize any religion. If you can't imagine these things living side by side in harmony then you will find it very difficult to understand the concept of liberty. This concept has nothing to do with tolerance, that is another, separate virtue where we tolerate something even though we don't agree, and we don't need to encourage or protect those views that we tolerate. For liberty, you not only tolerate, but go one step further we protect the rights of people with whom either you don't agree or even strongly disagree. As a person who values liberty, I stand for not only my own rights but also others whose ideas and views might hurt my feelings, challenge my views, or offend me. Other's right to express their ideas is as absolute and important as mine, no more, no less.

I wish that in this growing atmosphere of political polarization and racial and religious divide, people understand the importance of protecting individual rights. I would like to end the post with a very famous quote by Voltaire which is shared widely, but hardly practiced in real life, "I disapprove of what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it." If we all understand the real meaning of these words and try to practice them in real life, this world will be a more beautiful place for each one of us.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

Some serious flaws associated with the way science fairs are judged

Science is not just an academic discipline or a subject from the school curriculum, but it is a liberating tool available to anyone and everyone. It liberates our minds from the darkness of ignorance and enables us to question things. It encourages us to learn by observation and also teaches us that there are many things that we don't know, and it's okay not to know about things and continue to look for answers. This is why I love basic elements of science, which encourage questioning, analysis, data generation and verification, and critical thinking. All these elements are not only helpful while we study science during our school or college days, but these things are extremely useful in our day-to-day lives. This is why I love the idea of conducting a science fair for school children. The main intention of these fairs is not just to attract talented students to the discipline of science, but also to introduce school kids to all these elements of scientific analysis at a very young age so that they can use them in their day-to-day lives. This is the reason whenever possible I try to volunteer as a judge in the city and state science fairs.

While judging these fairs I observed a few things which somewhat disturbed me. I saw kids whose parents belonged to the science field taking undue advantage of resources available to them to perform science projects way beyond their grade level, whereas other kids who didn't have access to such resources lacked that sophistication and couldn't compete with this elite class of kids from families of parents from a science background. There is nothing wrong with encouraging your kid to take up challenging science projects or brainstorming with them to generate some relevant ideas for their project. I am a scientist and I do that with my kids, but my role is limited to raising questions and making sure that they try to find something on their own which suits their level of understanding of science. Neither I generate an idea for them, nor do I help them to select the topic, my role is limited to providing them with materials required for the experiment and making sure that they do it safely.

When there is no level playing field the competition becomes one-sided, heavily biased towards kids with scientific privileges, and this thing bothers me. But, the question is how to balance this imbalance of resources so that all students get a fair deal? How to make sure that all students are competing on a level playing field? There is no easy way, it is not the fault of these students that their parents are scientists and they are helping these kids in a way they shouldn't be. We can't punish these kids for the well-intended help offered to them by their parents, but then how can we watch these other kids with no scientific help apart from their teachers and schools fail regularly in front of kids from scientifically privileged backgrounds? The only way out is to make disclosures of all help received mandatory: from where you got the idea, where you conducted the experiment, who helped you, and whether any of your parents belong to the science field. The list is not exhaustive, but these questions might give us an idea of the scientific privilege of such kids, and let them compete with each other, this will be the real test for them and it will be better for them. Maybe others have better suggestions to tackle this issue, but I feel this should be discussed before many kids move away from science just because they can't compete with a few kids who come from scientifically privileged families. We need bright and creative kids to choose science as their profession, science needs creativity and imagination like any other field. It is the responsibility of the scientific community to make sure that we create a conducive environment to attract such talent.

The USA has a great tradition of scientific endeavors, and we cannot afford to lose this advantage, this is why we need to stop this field from becoming a monopoly of a few privileged families. The USA is a leader in science and technology and this is one of the main reasons for its world dominance. If the scientific community doesn't make serious efforts to increase the diversity and reachability of scientific knowledge to each and every corner of society, this country might lose this edge to others who are rapidly closing this gap. Let's start with fixing the science education and the way many of these science fairs are judged. Please remember, that prevention is always better than cure.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

To understand is not to condone

If I understand why people need religion, do I support it? If I understand why religion makes people kill other human beings without having any remorse, do I support such killings? If I argue for some issues propagated by some particular political party, do I support that political party? During regular discussions, while discussing various social and political issues whenever I try to argue about a less popular side or another side of the issue, people often misunderstand that I support the side about which I am arguing. The explanation, that I don't support that side, but I understand it and I want to bring those points into discussion doesn't register very well with most people. Many think that you cannot argue for any side unless you support it. Well, this may be true with many people, but not with me. During any discussion, if there is no representation for another side of the issue then there is no point in discussing that topic. There are very few topics about which there is universal condemnation but for all others, it is very important to know about all sides before drawing any conclusions. As Alan Dershowitz puts this in his book, Letters to a Young Lawyer, he writes, "To understand is not to condone, but to enlighten and perhaps to prevent the same mistake others have made." It is very important to understand that "to understand is not to condone." There is a huge difference between understanding any issue, arguing about it, or representing it in any debate, and wholeheartedly supporting it. 

For me monotonous discussions are boring. I am not interested in praising any political party or political leader unconditionally to the level of worshipping them and projecting as if things what I support are the ONLY right things. I also don't like venomous one-sided criticisms without much rationale and logic to an extent to project things in an extremely bad light. I like to have a representation from another side, if there is no one, then I volunteer to represent that side. In a liberal group, I try to represent the conservative side, and in a conservative group, I try to bring up the liberal point of view. This makes it possible to see why people criticize some particular ideology and how rational their criticism is. Very often people consider me a supporter of that particular ideology or political group (the group they oppose), which is wrong. Yes, I do have certain political preferences, but I don't support any particular political party.

Many people don't understand the importance of having a representation from another side in a discussion. This is particularly challenging in political discussions, as a politically independent person, if you try to argue the good and bad points of each political side, people often get confused. The normal expectation is that a person will choose a particular political party or a leader and defend or attack them vehemently. People try to support their chosen party, no matter what, and try to criticize their opponents, no matter what. But, if they don't see such a clear loyalty or animosity, they get confused. I have been the victim of such confusion many times. I don't mind this, as many times this is an unavoidable situation. I feel that if people understand and learn to look at both sides and try to understand the good and bad points of both the sides in any argument or debate, we will see much less political polarization and much more bipartisan collaboration.

There is no ideology or political party which is perfect with answers to all the problems. Very often best answers to questions are scattered through all over the political spectrum and we need to consider many issues before making a final decision on any major policy issues. But very often the political supporters of these leaders and parties don't understand this and fall in a trap of political polarization to the advantage of these parties and leaders. Polarization always helps someone to win an election, but it rarely helps a nation to move forward. Please understand the need to be fair to people whom you criticize, it is very necessary to understand the opponent's points of view clearly to be able to criticize it properly. Otherwise, that criticism has no value other than political rhetoric or angry passionate rants, which can be used in politically charged speeches for the supporters of that own party but are useless for any conducive political policy discussion. Try to understand opponents' views first, before commenting about them, maybe it will help to shape your own views in a much better way.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]