hopelesshappiness.com

It is easiest to get worked up over personal injustice, it is more difficult to get worked up over injustice served to others even when the injustice is similar to or the same as a personal injustice, it is often more difficult yet to get worked up over injustice brought upon people who are different in circumstance, culture, geography or belief, and it is most difficult to get worked up over any injustice when I am fortunate, comfortable or even just okay within my personal circumstance.

I believe a common perspective of happiness is to find a way to be okay regardless of your circumstance and regardless of any clinging injustice. In other words, delusion.

It is a logical extension then to maintain that those who don't get worked up over injustice (especially obvious injustice) as felt by others are thinking and/or acting delusionally.

Delusional thinking or behavior is not always dysfunctional, (and sometimes it is necessary), but in this regard, the divisiveness created by the common injustice we have systematized in this country is keeping us from saving the world. In hindsight we will have no choice but to admit our behavior was dysfunctional.

Perhaps the 4th degree injustice described above as distanced by personal comfort, is not a separate category but a multiplier; or more correctly, a divisor. Perhaps the more you are (or the more you believe you are) fortunate-comfortable-okay-happy, the weaker, the more diluted your compassion, empathy or desire for justice. This explains the efforts of the most fortunate to maintain status quo by convincing the less fortunate that they are happy and okay within their personal circumstance.

To further dissociate and confuse within this equity dynamic, I believe we have an overall mindset that those who have more deserve more and as substantiated by our growing wealth gap, in the workplace and in other financially-driven circumstance, we have developed processes in which those who have more get more. Perhaps I have reversed the chicken and the egg; perhaps those who have more get more first, which then strengthens and justifies the mindset that those who have more deserve more. Regardless, I see this in my workplace (a large state university) and I have documented how across groups the richer get richer; (for example from 2020 to 2021 those making $100,000 or more per year received an average 5.40% increase and those making less than $20 per hour received an average 0.33% increase). Yet I have no doubt that for any given individual case, justification has been made or can be manufactured. Justification is not justice.

Analyzing what I know, my workplace, what began nearly a year ago as a search for personal justice has revealed (to me) what appears to be widespread, systemic inequity. This week I asked those with the word “Equity” in their title (i.e. equity experts) to help me to understand. I told them that I would seriously like to know if I am misinterpreting what I see and, if not, if there is an awareness and if there is work being done to correct / improve, and (again, if not), should there be? So far, (granted, it has only been a few days), I have received two responses that expressed curiosity and an official response from the Office of Institutional Equity outlining my rights, options and resources, and suggesting that I discuss my concerns with a “human resources benefits specialist” to better understand “the university’s global grading scale and job class structure.” I suspect it is this scale and structure, this exact process, that I am questioning, and I suspect it will provide justification and the University will come away secure and protected having put me back in my place. But again, Justification is not Justice, and I am not at all clear how one can see the consistent disparity in across-the-board percentage increases (ex. >$99,999.99 – 5.40%; Custodians – 1.77%) and not see inequity.

More than anything, I want to listen and understand. In this moment, I have no agenda beyond this request. Yet so far I have (maybe) piqued some curiosity and I have been steered toward resources that promise justification. We will see in the next few days if anyone will come forward to address equity and justice and compassion and empathy. If the equity experts do not have the time or inclination to discuss equity and justice and compassion and empathy, then (in this moment) I am inclined to perhaps ask this same group again; perhaps persistence is necessary. I feel like if I begin asking other groups or interested parties too soon, it will potentially muddy the waters. Ultimately I would like to see one of two outcomes: 1) an explanation convincing me I have misinterpreted data and there is no injustice, or 2) acknowledgement, awareness and the beginning of progress toward correction and improvement. This is not about me. I will say it again: there is a bigger picture here that I would very much like for others to see and understand or convince me that I am not seeing it or understanding it correctly. I will continue to pursue this, in some way, until one of these two results come about.

February 26, 2025: Three years later I have not accomplished either objective. There is no justice and there has been no acknowledgement, awareness or improvement. My last day will be March 1, 2025.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

We the People of the United States: Not just the rich, the powerful, the entitled – Everyone!

in Order to form a more perfect Union: We will never reach perfection, it is a work in progress; it should be a work in progress. In this moment it feels like we are standing still or moving backwards. No work. No progress.

establish Justice: The rich, the powerful, the entitled talk a good game, but when the object of the game is to maintain status quo, empathy, compassion, justice are lost in the weeds of their words.

insure domestic Tranquility: Perhaps this originally meant peace among the states giving federal government power to quash rebellion, but today this concept of states has evolved into entrenched factions (which are sometimes partially defined by state borders) and when it is our federal government (all three branches) that perpetuates divisiveness and encourages rebellion, where do we turn? Our lack of domestic tranquility has made us a laughingstock.

provide for the common defence: Who are we defending ourselves against? Who is the enemy? I see the biggest threat to progress, to justice, to domestic tranquility, to our general welfare, to liberty as the rich, the powerful, the entitled. The creation of foreign enemies can be and has been a misdirection, a sleight of hand, meant to distract us from this internal threat. I would go so far as to say that this campaign to maintain status quo is a stealth form of domestic terrorism. Americans are dying every day from injustice, from a lack of empathy and compassion, for the sake of the almighty dollar, for the sake of a misremembered past, to maintain existing wealth, power and entitlement.

promote the general Welfare: Welfare regards the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity of a defined group or people and General implies “We the People of the United States.” I interpret this phrase to mean equitable opportunity; for Everyone. As a people we lack in this regard.

and secure the Blessings of Liberty: Somehow our government has come to believe it is their job to dictate who is allowed what freedoms. They have it backwards. Our government was created to protect the preexisting freedom of equitable opportunity. Freedom came first. Our government should be subordinate.

to ourselves: (Once again), Everyone.

and our Posterity: Oh! Wow! The Future! Is there a future? Do we care about future generations? Today we certainly do not act as if we do.

do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

In this moment we do not need a new Constitution. We simply need a proper interpretation; a drastic scaling back of the power of the executive branch, a depoliticization of the judicial branch, and a restoration of civility and interdependence in the legislative branch. Our Constitution is a living, breathing document that must be seen and interpreted in its entirety, taking into consideration how interpretation of one piece may influence protections laid out in another piece. Our Constitution is a healthy, living, breathing document, with the potential for a long life; but it cannot, without us, deliver progress, justice, peace, security, goodness or freedom. Unfortunately, “We the people of the United States” are on life support.

This week I jumped through hoops. There was the preventative health hoop, the bureaucratic hoop, the authoritarian hoop, the capitalist hoop; all more pronounced this week, creating more discomfort and more pain than they do most weeks. I found it difficult this week to walk as much, read as much, think as much, write as much as I normally do. When the hoops are lined up in waiting, as they were this week, it is difficult to be creative; it is difficult to project myself outside the box; it is difficult to believe that progress will be made. To advance, to evolve, to improve one must step out of line, yet some weeks, days, hours, moments, there we are, in our place, obedient, subdued, in line.

Perhaps this coming week I will work to regain my discordant flow.

Yet, in a way, the low hum of unthinking, quotidian conformity was comforting. Though I claimed above that the hoops created discomfort and pain, I also found that by just doing what I’m told, what is expected, what suits the status quo, in a way, releases me, frees me from the discomfort of change. And sometimes the discomfort of change is more painful than the discomfort of being told what to do. Perhaps the initial discomfort and pain I refer to was simply an adjustment. I had an opportunity this week to upheave. I chose not to, I think because I was too busy with hoops. It was just easier to jump through one after another after another, than it would have been to jump through one, try to go around another, then dash off miles in another direction and return in time to determine how to handle the next. The flaming hoops are different. The flaming hoops must be dealt with or their keepers will chase you down with bigger fire; but sometimes rather than jumping through, the fire can be extinguished and the firekeepers temporarily mollified. But that is a lot of work. This week it was easier to jump.

To be free of discomfort is often to be stagnant and stuck. But to be free to act is often to be anxious and troubled. This week I am debating which freedom I prefer, personally. As a culture, as a species, I believe it is necessary to be anxious and troubled. But is it necessary that I personally be anxious and troubled? Or is it okay for me to step back, in line, and be free of discomfort. It has become abundantly clear that I am not, nor will likely ever be, in a position of power or influence from which I can help us (as a culture, as a species) to advance, evolve, improve. Yet I still work as if I can make a difference. And I have to wonder, if I stop making that effort will the “stagnant and stuck” part create even more discomfort? Or will I grow accustomed to the low hum of unthinking, quotidian conformity? If this week is an indication, I believe there is a good chance I could learn to live, comfortably, stagnant and stuck. I look around and there seems to be consensus agreement.

Perhaps this coming week I will again jump through hoops.

It is much easier after all to stick my head in the sand; ignore the facts and the statistics; close my eyes and cover my ears. For me though I find it very difficult to shut my mouth, yet when I am jumping through hoops and/or when I am around other hoop jumpers, that is exactly what I am being asked to do, and in fact, not infrequently, told to do. So when everyone else has their eyes closed and their ears covered, I typically walk, read, think, write

So perhaps this coming week I will, after all, work to regain my discordant flow.

To justify the-existence-of-one-thing-at-the-expense-of-another.

It is the relationship that is disconcerting. The one-thing can be one's self; usually a rich, powerful and/or entitled self. The one-thing can be an ideology, or a doctrine, or an organization, or an individual other than oneself. The one-thing can be anything that requires sustenance for its continued existence. An excellent example of one-thing within this dynamic of one-thing-at-the-expense-of-another is an employer; most especially a large employer. For an employer’s continued existence, it must be fed. An employer eats the blood sweat and tears of its employees, and to continue to survive, an employer constantly demands more for less. A large employer believes that by stacking layers upon layers of individual drivers they can increase productivity and efficiency, but from where I sit it appears that what pops out of the hat is the Donnie Darko Rabbit brought forth to intimidate the lower layers into a more-for-less mindset and to protect the uppermost layers from reality. Thus, as the demand for efficiency becomes ever more urgent, the bottom layer(s) are squeezed the hardest, and, the more layers of junior justifiers between the-expense-of-another and the chief justifier, the greater the expense as felt by another. I used to be a junior justifier. Today I am just another expense item trapped beneath layers upon layers upon layers and guarded by a few very scary rabbits.

Justification is not justice.

Yet justification has become our fallback position and for many junior justifiers it apparently feels like justice. And the closer a junior justifier is to the chief justifier, the less they see, hear or care, and the more righteous their justifications.

Last Fall I received a 2% increase in my hourly pay taking me from $18.40 to $18.77. This week, after hearing last Fall “Congratulations-on-your-two-percent-raise-it’s-what-everybody-got” I have discovered (thanks to my abilities with a pivot table and to the release of the annual salary report required by the state) that “everybody” did not include the entire university/campus system (approximately 10,000 individuals), the department I work in, the department I work most closely with, all other individuals with whom I share my job title, the leadership team closest to my responsibilities including the university president, and 8 other groups. In each of the first five groups, from 2020 to 2021 the average pay increase for combined hourly and salaried personnel was (respectively) 4.36%, 3.15%, 6.04%, 3.75% and 7.26%. And in the additional eight groups all but two exceeded my percentage increase. Obviously a large number of people did not get the 2% memo. The two groups who (interestingly) received a smaller percentage increase? 1) The group of individuals within the dataset making less than $20 per hour, and 2) Custodians.

I included eight individuals in the leadership team, (all making from $190,000 to $600,000 per year), but if I take out one individual who did not receive an increase, (I would like to believe she did so on principle), then the pay increase for the other seven ranged from 4.50% to 12.45% with an average of 8.18%. Again, my pay increase was 2.01% and I can’t help but feel that (because it was due to rounding) the .01% was given begrudgingly.

The saddest part? This is exactly what I expected to see. I am not at all surprised.

One individual included on the leadership team has the last name Jones. Out of curiosity I calculated all the Jones’s systemwide and it is no surprise that I also cannot keep up with the Jones’s. Their overall average increase was a whopping 13.83%. Again, my pay increase was 2.01% and I can’t help but feel that (because it was due to rounding) the .01% was given begrudgingly.

From 2020 to 2021 there was an increase of 19 individuals (from 9724 to 9743) within the parameters of this dataset. It is encouraging that approximately 10% of those making less than $20 per hour in 2020 have moved into the set, (or been replaced by someone hired into the set), of those making $20 or more per hour in 2021. It is discouraging that the increase in average hourly rate for those making less than $20 per hour was only 0.33% from 2020 to 2021 whereas the increase in average hourly rate for those making $20 or more per hour was 2.32%. Salaried personnel within this same set received an average annual salary of $104,984.07 in 2021 reflecting an average percentage increase of 4.03%, whereas (respectively) the numbers for hourly personnel are $40,356.96 and 3.45%. If the real dollars from the 0.58% difference between salaried and hourly personnel were added to the hourly personnel it would increase their percentage increase by an additional 1.50%. In addition, those making $100,000 or more in both 2020 and 2021 received an average annual increase of 5.40%. More simply put, the richer get richer and it doesn’t mean as much. Even more simply put, the wealth gap is alive and doing very well, thank you very much.

Looking again at the leadership team responsible for decisions leading to my 2.01%, I have to ask these seven individuals, why? I know you talk a good game, equity, justice, empathy, but can you talk me through this? 8.18%? Please help me to understand. If I had received your group-of-seven 8.18% instead of my 2.01%, I would be within 9 cents of the $20 club. You, both individually and as the group-of-seven, are the one-thing and I, along with thousands of others, are sustaining your existence at our expense. As said before I am not surprised. And the fact that I am reasonably calm and rational tells me that I have (sadly) grown accustomed to rhetoric and duplicity and contrivance and subservience and helplessness.

Here, I would like to note that I do see some validity in some justifications, and others I realize I am not in a position to judge. And I understand that I am working to the same end.

That said, I still feel helpless, discouraged, disillusioned, demoralized. To me the issue is not my 2.01%. I will continue to make noise and ultimately find my peace. Nor is it necessarily your 8.18%. Though I believe many rich, powerful, and/or entitled individuals will continue to make excuses in their search for a bigger piece. To me it is the relationship that is disconcerting. One-thing-at-the-expense-of-another.

Justification is not justice.

1. “It's fair because it's the rule.”
2. It's fair because it's how we've always done it.
3. It's fair because it's how it is.
4. It's fair because it's how it should be.

I do not agree with the statements above, but this past week it was brought to my attention that some, (perhaps a great number of), intelligent, coherent, functional individuals do abide by one or more of these declarations. I also discovered that with some prodding, coaching, an individual could stretch their thinking to understand and admit that a rule may be unfair and that it might be okay to work to change an unfair rule. This discovery was for a rule in a low stakes circumstance, but still is (I believe) a potential first step toward fair. I believe it likely becomes progressively more difficult to convince (perhaps a great number of) intelligent, coherent, functional individuals to work to change a tradition, a higher stakes circumstance, an entrenched belief.

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “To imagine is to represent without aiming at things as they actually, presently, and subjectively are. One can use imagination to represent possibilities other than the actual, to represent times other than the present, and to represent perspectives other than one’s own.” To imagine is to move beyond how we've always done it; to move beyond how it is; to move beyond how one has been taught it should be. To imagine is to escape rules. To imagine is to be free of one's self. I might go so far as to say that the preeminent manifestation of imagination is justice and the lowliest, ugliest, most ignoble expression of Humanity is negligence. Negligence requires no imagination and very little depth of character. One who thoughtlessly accepts, abides, perpetuates a rule or tradition that neglects or divides has no imagination. On the other hand, one who makes a rule that purposefully neglects or divides has a cruel, wanton imagination. Perhaps the bigger problem between the two is no imagination. There will always be imaginative, wanton cruelty and there will always be those who revel in its form; but I believe (to those with no imagination), imagination can be explained; taught. Perhaps a second bigger problem is a selfish, underutilized imagination. Perhaps underutilized because within the confines of our American way today, imagination is usually not rewarded and it is frequently punished. To encourage and perpetuate imagination, its utilization must be constantly reinforced and rewarded. That is not happening in this country.

I have identified three problems:

1. To be imaginatively cruel.
2. To be unimaginatively simple and simultaneously intelligent, coherent, functional.
3. To understand yet ignore injustice.

In recent decades, in this country (sadly) we have two political parties and a great mass of divided constituents. One party is imaginatively cruel. One party (despite their rhetoric) largely ignores injustice. And the great mass is unimaginatively simple. Previous to recent decades we essentially had one political party (ignoring justice) and the great mass for the most part undivided yet still unimaginatively simple. It feels that by creating division and adding a party that champions imaginative cruelty, we have taken a step backwards; but perhaps not. Perhaps by drawing out cruel, wanton imagination, we can stamp it out. It has always been there, but only in recent decades has it been exposed; openly and (more and more so in recent years) unapologetically acting in our politics and so blatantly in our daily lives. Now that we can see it, perhaps we can encourage its extinction and by doing so perhaps we are more likely to reinforce and reward imagination. Though even if we reach this point of greater likelihood, because imagination is a defining characteristic of Humanity, we must still reconcile our Humanity with our American system of capitalism and consumerism; an uphill battle. I have said before, “humanity impedes efficiency and our system today impedes our humanity.” But again, perhaps today’s flagrant, unashamed, brazenly obvious, tastelessly conspicuous, meretricious, unabashed, screaming practice of cruel, wanton imagination resulting in naked negligence will prod us forward.

I frequently feel out of place. I feel out of place because I strive to be free of my self, and because I strive to be free of my self when many, (perhaps a great number of), intelligent, coherent, functional individuals prioritize comfort, I feel out of place. It is not a comfortable feeling

To be an intelligent, coherent, functional individual who is also unimaginatively simple is to choose comfort. I could choose to choose comfort. But though comfort may return one to their self, their place, comfort perpetuates negligence.

To be imaginatively progressive, to be imaginatively compassionate, to actively seek justice, to add depth to one’s character requires discomfort. Discomfort encourages and perpetuates imagination and (as said) the preeminent manifestation of imagination is justice.

I seek discomfort to encourage and perpetuate imagination.

So…

I feel out of place because I am out of place.