Hasta La Gadget!

WASHINGTON — The nation’s capital is not a happy or well place, Arthur Brooks has concluded.

He should know. A pioneer in “happiness studies,” Brooks examines the how and why of human wellness in all its dimensions: physical, mental, moral and spiritual.

As president of the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank devoted to extolling the virtues of capitalism, Brooks argues that free markets are the most efficient means yet devised to give people the chance to be fulfilled. While pursuing that intellectual sales mission, he has also become a student of the city in which he lives, and he sees a Washington wellness deficit wherever he looks.

The gist of the story lies in the numbers. Silicon Valley aside, the Washington metropolitan area is the wealthiest in the nation. Though some New Yorkers and Londoners might disagree, the Pentagon’s budget and the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet prove that it remains the world’s most powerful city.

Yet Washington rarely, if ever, makes the top 10 happiest city lists, while it ranks at or near the top of per capita lists such as alcohol consumption and psychiatrists in residence.

In his six years in D.C., Brooks, a best-selling author, said he has seen too many powerful people valuing the wrong things in their own lives.

“Thomas Aquinas said that there are four substitutes for God,” Brooks said during an interview in his sunny, spare AEI office suite. “They are money, power, pleasure and honor. Different places are attached to different substitutes.

“Power and honor are the coin of the realm here,” he said. “The problem is that what gets rewarded in centers of power doesn’t lend itself very well to spiritual enlightenment of individuals.

“People go for the easy, shiny lure,” he said. “And there is just a ton of it around here: people you see who are actually pretty smart, pretty excellent, becoming these self-caricatures and these self-aggrandizing mediocrities.

“If you don’t have a moral core,” Brooks declared, “it’s going to be really hard to stay happy.”

The former college professor said that he didn’t wish to lecture and that “Washington is full of wonderful people.” But he still urges people to look for deeper types of human wellness.

Brooks has always wanted to do what he wanted to do — and on his own terms.

The Seattle-bred son of college professors is himself a onetime college dropout who eventually earned his bachelor’s degree by correspondence course. He dropped math for music and moved to Barcelona to play French horn in an orchestra so that he could be with his rocker girlfriend (now wife).

He’s a 50-year-old fitness devotee with the lean torso of a Tour de France biker. He wears argyle socks, jeans and an oversized orange-faced wristwatch given to him by a friend.

Brooks attends Catholic Mass daily, speaks of his own spiritual journey easily, and is given to quoting Johann Sebastian Bach, economists Friedrich Hayek and Adam Smith and, of course, Aquinas — in adjoining sentences in the same paragraph.

Life, Brooks said, needs to be a “self-entrepreneurial venture” to find your own highest and best use. For him, that means “the business of glorifying God and serving others.”

Finding your mission is all the more important in Washington, he said, because as a world capital, the stakes are higher here.

“The thing I love about Washington is that it’s excellent. Everything is excellent, from the housing stock to the quality of people’s minds,” he said.

“But that is where human frailty is the most vicious: among people who are the most excellent. That is why virtue is arguably more important here than it is in other places. The Third Metric is more important here than in other places.”

With that in mind, Brooks has begun inviting spiritual leaders to speak at AEI, an institution best known for number crunching, free market thinking and military hawkishness.

Last winter the Dalai Lama came; last week it was Sri Sri Ravi Shankar from India. Brooks said that he wants to invite religious leaders of all stripes to speak.

“People know my views, they know my beliefs,” he said. “They know that not infrequently I go to Mass in the middle of the day.

“I want people to be able to have that kind of spiritual free expression. And not just religion. Not everybody’s into that. I want them to be able to find their path, too,” he said.

Openness to spiritual life is just one aspect of a well-lived life. There are others, perhaps more prosaic but no less important to wellness.

For Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), one small step for humankind is her Fitbit. Extolling the virtues of the exercise monitor has become a mission. No one on either side of the aisle is immune.

“I know a senator who wears hers in her bra,” said Klobuchar, an upbeat, bubbly sort who chairs the Senate Wellness Caucus. “No, I’m not telling you who it is! But I have convinced quite a few others to at least give the Fitbit a try.”

The caucus has only nine members and meets rarely, but it has held hearings on best workplace practices to promote health and well-being (the examples tend to come from Klobuchar’s home state), and it has worked to encourage such practices in federal health care laws.

Klobuchar also looks for ways to connect with other lawmakers as individuals, apart from politics. One means of doing so are the “women’s dinners” that female senators hold once every other month or so.

“We don’t talk about policy or politics,” Klobuchar said. “We talk about our kids, our families, our lives.

“Real friendships come out of that, and it makes you feel better about life here.”

David McCabe contributed reporting.

In recognition of Pride Week, the following is an exclusive adaptation of an excerpt from my forthcoming book, The Future of Me: End of the Age of Dominant Males, an in-depth cultural, societal and genetic exploration of the impact on men of the emergence and growing power of women. In this chapter I explore how television has portrayed gay lifestyles, and the TV series that have been most influential in reversing perceptions and attitudes toward gays and same-sex marriage in America.

Art, in its best form, allows you to experience life and ultimately changes the way you view the world. Will & Grace was one of those rare television shows to do just that. It was entertaining, but it did more than just amuse its viewers.

Will & Grace presented America with a perspective that was completely contrary to popular belief. In September 1998, following the 1997-’98 failure of ABC’s Ellen, Will & Grace was launched on NBC-TV as the first program to have an openly gay male character as the lead on primetime television. Defying expectations, the sitcom would run from 1998 through 2006 and be ranked as the highest-rated sitcom in America among viewers aged 18 to 49 from 2001 to 2005. The show undoubtedly opened doors and desensitized America to homosexuality, paving the way for future shows. Contrary to popular belief, though, it isn’t about homosexuality. Instead, the show is really about understanding and being able to value and appreciate one of life’s greatest gifts: friendship.

While the show’s premise is supposed to be about two best friends, Will and Grace, one who happens to be heterosexual and one who is not, the plot really continues a formulaic sitcom standard: Will the odd-couple pairing eventually be consummated romantically? Granted, the setup of having Grace’s life revolve around finding the perfect man doesn’t exactly flatter women either.

The show focuses on her relationships and sexual encounters and rarely crosses the “comfort line” that people may have had by delving into Will’s relationships and sex life. People are OK with a woman having a “gay best friend” as long as they don’t have to hear too much about his personal (or sex) life. It is especially palatable if he is upper-class, white, uptight, and not acting in “gay” behavior that makes people uncomfortable. Grace has several lovers on the show, portrayed by actors such as Harry Connick Jr., Edward Burns and Woody Harrelson; Will has an occasional one-episode fling but is never shown in a long-term relationship, though it is mentioned in the first season that he had a seven-year relationship previously.

The center of comic relief is usually Jack, Will’s close friend. He’s out and proud, but he’s so over-the-top that he’s also fairly nonthreatening. Everything about his one-dimensional character is designed to set up the laughs. Compare this to the gay character Oscar Martinez on The Office. Both are witty and sarcastic, yet Oscar’s character is not a caricature and is not written to be the campy butt of jokes. He is intelligent and a bit of a dork — and he is a blue-collar Latino.

Jack’s campy, flamboyant, theater-loving, loudmouth personality serves another purpose: By contrasting with Will’s already “pass-for-straight” demeanor, it makes Will an even safer, easier-to-digest representation of a gay man. This is in line with the new asexual-but-“masculine” image of gays presented in the media, an image that doesn’t challenge mainstream society’s heteronormativity. Will has restraint and a brain; Jack is promiscuous and flighty. The two choices presented are: Are you a “Will” or a “Jack” type of gay?

That view that Will & Grace taught the uneducated public much of anything about real lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) issues, or about non-stereotypical thought, is debatable, but one thing can’t be challenged: There are more gay characters on television now. No one can deny that Will & Grace has earned a place in cultural history as the vehicle that brought homosexuality out of the television closet.

However, now a question remains: Is the sheer quantity of gay characters on television somehow more important than the quality of those representations?

Joe Biden was quoted on Meet the Press as stating his personal belief that Will & Grace had done more to advance the cause of the gay population of America than anything else.

Critics were initially dismissive of the show, some calling it a “gay Seinfeld” and others doubting that a show devoid of romantic chemistry between the female and male leads could possibly last. Critics were incorrect, however, as the show went on to run a total of eight seasons. It also received 83 Emmy nominations and 16 Emmy Awards. Part of the show’s success was the fact that it is, in part, simply a gay Seinfeld. Yet homosexuality is not the central theme of the show. While the two main leads are a gay man and his straight female friend, the show is not simply about being gay. Instead, it happens to have gay characters among its cast. This paved the way for shows that introduced gay issues and gay characters. Essentially, this lack of overall emphasis on being gay made homosexuality less of a loaded issue and pushed it toward the background.

Many of the central conflicts within Will & Grace deal with standard problems such as finding work, romance, fighting with friends and having children. In this way, Will & Grace revealed to audiences that a show does not have to be about the gay community if it includes a gay main character. It also served as a demonstration that the concerns of the gay community — friends and family — are the same as the concerns of the straight community.

Before Will & Grace

Prior to Will & Grace there were few popular gay-themed shows. The same year that Will & Grace launched, Ellen DeGeneres had already stirred controversy with an episode of Ellen in which the title character comes out as gay (like the actress who played her). Ellen’s coming-out episode garnered a huge amount of positive response from viewers, but the show was cancelled soon thereafter. When Ellen Morgan first came out on the hit show Ellen, criticism was so intense that Ellen reported being followed in her car by strange men, and the show’s executives were screening calls from angry viewers. Today it appears that it has become far more acceptable to show gay characters on television and to avoid making homosexuality the emphasis of the show itself. Even when homosexuality is highly featured within the show, the show is still able to move away from it to cover other topics.

Will & Grace is widely believed to have had an influence on the area of gay television. This includes such programs as Six Feet Under, Glee, The New Normal, Modern Family, Warehouse 13 and Orange Is the New Black. In all these programs there are gay main characters, but their homosexuality is rarely explored as a theme. Modern Family is a direct spiritual successor to Will & Grace. The show gets a lot of mileage out of humor that involves the gay couple within the show, but at the same time it has been welcomed by the viewing community and has consistently achieved high ratings. It has been criticized at times for not showing any physical chemistry between the two gay leads, but it has also won many awards, including 17 Emmy nominations. It’s similar to Will & Grace in that being gay is not the emphasis of the show but does play a major part as a focus of the show.

Series are now able to have lead characters who are gay without emphasizing it. This sends the message that being gay is as normal as any other random character trait, such as red hair or following a certain religion.

Will & Grace has also been credited with the development of Queer as Folk, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy and Boy Meets Boy. All three of these shows gained widespread acceptance and achieved commercial success.

Queer Eye for the Straight Guy was an excellent example of a show that presented to the straight public a point of view of the gay community that had previously been unexplored by the straight community. On the program gay men do a complete makeover of a straight — and typically macho — man. While it is not a perfect representation of the gay community, it still went a long way in communicating the fact that the gay community is not a threat and never will be a threat to the lifestyles of the straight community. Queer Eye for the Straight Guy attracted some criticism due to the fact that it was rooted in stereotypes, but it was nevertheless extremely popular.

Six Feet Under was a unique series in that two of the characters are gay and their relationship is heavily featured despite central themes that deal with other topics. The gay relationship is given no more or less weight than any other relationship within the show, and it is framed in much the same way. Six Feet Under proved to be an extremely popular show, and it was not crippled or held back significantly by the gay content. Overall, it humanized the gay characters and gay relationships in a way that was extremely worthwhile as well as critically acclaimed.

Another series that introduced gay themes was the legendary TV series thirtysomething. In the sixth episode of the third season, Russell, a painter, meets Peter, an ad executive. The two men, with a bit of prodding from mutual friends, are introduced and arrange a business meeting over dinner. Peter gives Russell some excellent professional advice about Russell’s upcoming art exhibit and shows his keen ability to read Russell through his artistic expressions. The two hit it off, and Peter ends up spending the night with Russell.

From the very beginning Russell is trying to talk himself out of being attracted to Peter. It’s not because he’s in the closet; both men are somewhat guarded but openly gay, which was completely terrifying to a lot of viewers at the time. Being gay in the late ’80s and early ’90s was scary, as it was at the height of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, and very little was known about the disease. Not by choice, people in the gay community shared a commonality in that everyone knew someone who either had the HIV virus or had already died from AIDS.

This common thread is brought up very casually in this episode when Russell and his new romantic interest are in bed together for the first time. The casualness of their tone speaks volumes; the epidemic is a very large, very real part of their lives, and checking the obituaries for familiar names is something that only two gay men could speak about in the same context as checking the sports page or the daily crossword puzzle.

Even though Russell’s relationship with Peter is a same-sex one, foreign to most heterosexual viewers, their relationship otherwise is very relatable. Russell’s hesitance to approach Peter, for example, even with Melissa’s encouragement and full support, is applicable to any new relationship. People watching could not only relate to his fear of commitment but see a little more into the gay world because of it. His vulnerability allowed viewers to imagine what it must have been like to avoid attachment for fear of losing yet another close friend.

Peter, in this episode, is even more apprehensive than Russell. He allows Russell to make all the first moves, and even though he accepts each advance, it is with cautious reservation. Even though he admits that he is open with most people about his sexuality, which was particularly brave for that period in time, he shares Russell’s fear of attachment. Seeing the two of them attracted to each other but at the same time so afraid adds an element of sadness to the storyline. Both characters are very likeable, attractive and successful people. Viewers automatically want there to be a happy ending, such as seeing two people who should get together actually be together. The opportunity to relate to two gay men was a gift from the writers of the show to viewers. It had never been done before.

Before Will & Grace TV programs approached gay themes extremely cautiously. In Three’s Company the main character Jack has to pretend to be gay in front of their landlord in order to be allowed to live with two women. After Will & Grace programs such as thirtysomething brought a completely new mindset; they broke former stereotypes that needed to be obliterated. Being gay was no longer going to be anyone’s punch line. It was part of life, a reality that was finally coming to light after being the elephant in the room for so long. The writers of thirtysomething did more than create gay characters for their show: They gave them a voice; they made them visible. It was controversial at the time, yes, but very much appreciated by gays and non-gays alike who could no longer stand for the injustice of gays being seen as unequal.

Harvey Milk, America’s first openly gay politician (who was assassinated), said:

Every gay person must come out. As difficult as it is, you must tell your immediate family. You must tell your relatives. You must tell your friends if indeed they are your friends. You must tell the people you work with. You must tell the people in the stores you shop in. Once they realize that we are indeed their children, that we are indeed everywhere, every myth, every lie, every innuendo will be destroyed once and all. And once you do, you will feel so much better.

As acceptance for the gay population grows, it is very likely that shows will begin including gay characters more often, both in supporting roles and in lead roles. Shows may emphasize being gay less often and instead focus on the personalities of the characters themselves. This means that being gay will no longer have to dominate a character’s profile, and that characters will be able to become well-rounded, complex individuals who simply happen to be gay.

As gays gain more visibility and prominence in society and media, the cultural image of the “real man” will change with it, and the objectification of women in commercials will become less prominent. It may be political correctness or it may be a reflection of how studios perceive reality, but today gay male characters on TV are portrayed as more sensitive, creative, enlightened, smarter, honest, intimate and emotionally tuned-in.

Young straight men exposed to a role model of gay men who are successful with women both on TV and in life will be more likely to emulate their behavior than the less-respected and less-successful behaviors of the traditional, misogynistic, objectifying he-man. It’s ironic and, I’m sure, controversial that the image of the ideal man currently emerging in society and in media is gay, displaying more feminine characteristics, and far from the lead male who has dominated media and society from the beginning of time.

Does a Young Adult story resonate with teens who are dealing with cancer, and with those who care for cancer-ridden teenagers?

This summer, movie houses are being invaded by apocalyptic-disaster movies: Edge of Tomorrow, X-Men: Days of Future Past, The Expendables 3, Transformers: Age of Extinction, and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

As an antidote, there’s The Fault in Our Stars, which features teenagers who have been transformed by cell mutations and who feel expendable, because they are edging toward uncertain tomorrows, few future days, and premature extinction.

The screenplay seems faithful to the novel’s key scenes, conversations, characters, and story development.

Why would a 67-year-old read a Young Adult novel? Buy a copy, no less?

As a 67-year-old cancer survivor and member of a support group at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, I wondered about the support group featured in the YA novel that has topped the adult best-seller list. I wondered how the film adaptation would depict that support group. I was curious about the interactions and the coping strategies.

As a college seminar instructor whose courses are well populated by nursing, physical therapy, occupational therapy, physicians assistant, athletic training/sports medicine, and diagnostic imaging students, I wondered if the novel (along with scenes from the film) might provide lessons in communication, sensitivity, and empathy worth venturing in next semester’s curriculum.

In the author’s note, John Green cautions readers that “this book is a work of fiction” — but he goes on to declare (quite rightly, I believe) that “made-up stories can matter.”

Okay, there are indeed made-up stories that do matter. For thousands, maybe tens of thousands (more?), The Fault in Our Stars is “organic matter” — a love story and a story about loving that delivers emotional “nutrients.”

But I wondered if the story registered as genuine and relatable for teenagers who are actually afflicted with cancer.

From a pediatric nurse practitioner:

“In many respects, the characters’ conversations, their descriptions of pain, their coping strategies, their pranks, even their musings and ‘philosophizings’ — they capture some adolescents’ cancer experience. I’ve heard approximations from my patients,” notes Melody Brown Hellsten, DNP, Pediatric Nurse Practitioner at Texas Children’s Cancer and Hematology Centers. “I would recommend the novel to colleagues.”

Hellsten, who began pediatric oncology nursing in 1992 and has done pediatric palliative care since 1998, would not recommend the book to patients or parents of patients unless they inquired about the book specifically.

“I’d think about the particular patient’s history and dispositions, and what we know about the family. There’s fatalism that might not be helpful: there’s fatalistic talk about ‘the universe’ and about ‘oblivion’ — about the meaning of life and the meaning of any one person’s life. Softened, I suppose, by fatalistic humor. The story can be inspirational for some, but it wouldn’t be comforting or helpful to every patient or family. That’s my foremost and overriding concern.”

Hellsten, who is a pediatrics instructor at Baylor College of Medicine, explains:

“If, on their own initiative, a patient or family member tells me they’ve read the book, I’d consider how we might use some scenes, or the characters’ discussions, in a therapeutic way. There are descriptions of pain, despair, disgust, dread — and, more importantly, hopefulness — that might be confirming and even affirming therapeutically.

“Many teenagers who are obliged to contemplate death — their own passing — tend to be pretty sophisticated in their thinking. They have absorbed very adult vocabulary. I remember a toddler whose first word to his mother was ‘Methotrexate.’

“While a very young patient may not recall all the early crises and responses, the parents surely do. Perhaps the book and the movie bring that home. But even more significant is that the story — even as fiction — suggests how some youngsters can deal with sadness and anticipate grief, bereavement; and yet quip and laugh.”

Hellsten observes that “the voice of the child is not especially well represented in our medical literature.”

From a cancer survivor, now a caregiver:

The voice of the child is well conveyed by 15-year cancer survivor Christian Spear, who had to contend with acute lymphoid leukemia from ages 4 to 8.

Spear now helps young cancer patients (some terminal) write and produce songs at a special studio within Houston’s Texas Children’s Cancer Center. She has become acutely aware of what registers with patients — what appeals, what distracts and diverts.

“Our teenagers are dealing with illnesses that control just about everything they do — what they do, when they do it, what they can’t do. For boys, especially, video games play a role — part catharsis? Part transference? The book suggests as much in a metaphoric way. In video games, there are survival strategies and killing strategies; the hand-held ability to control one’s risks and one’s fate: to select when and how the video game operator dies. Psychologically telling, don’t you think?

“What might also be telling — for boys especially — are carnage movies (with piles of corpses). Maybe these films trivialize death in a way that allows patients to speak openly about it, and even mock it.”

As to Hazel Grace’s self-aware descriptions of her appearance, Spear finds them to be somewhat relatable, both as a caregiver and a former cancer patient.

“I remember going through a box of photos with my mom and seeing a frail young girl who had sunken-in cheek bones, and sickly-pale skin. I asked my mom who it was, and to my surprise, she said it was me. I could hardly recognize myself. I was equally unrecognizable when, with meds, my cheeks grew to be ‘chipmunked’ like Hazel’s are described.”

For cancer patients, IV poles and cannulas do not tell the story; the story is often related from the head.

From a child life specialist and her patients:

“Hazel’s got hair. She’s had chemo, and she still has hair.” That observation comes from a 16-year-old who is being treated for relapsed leukemia at Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago.

“Losing hair is an identifier; makes us recognizable as cancer patients. And we lose something else: We’ve had hair since our very first months. Everybody takes it for granted. We like to comb it; we’d run our hands through it when we were bored or fidgeting in school. Chemo takes away that privilege. We can’t hide the loss. It’s the ultimate label that we have cancer.”

The book and the movie have prompted compelling discussions among the cancer patients Heidi Thomalla (MS, CCLS) works with in her capacity as Senior Child Life Specialist in the Inpatient Oncology/Brain Tumor/Stem Cell Transplant division of Lurie Children’s Hospital. “In a meaningful, mature, way, these teens and tweens compared the story’s depictions with their realities.

“A particularly astute 11-year-old leukemia patient observed that in the movie Hazel isn’t hospitalized often, and isn’t undergoing extended treatments which limit a patient’s ability to get up and go on social visits and jaunts. This young patient noted that there are days when she doesn’t have enough energy to walk from one room to another. She also noted that Hazel has a lot of independence. Enviable, but not entirely realistic — for in real life, parents worry and are protective in enforcing doctors’ orders.

“The consensus is that — not surprisingly — the movie shies away from day-to-day ordeals in service of a love story. Even as they view the story as romanticizing the cancer experience, these patients value the glimpse it provided into their world. From the book, they appreciate and endorse Hazel’s descriptions of her pain: ‘my chest was on fire, flames licking the inside of my ribs fighting for a way to burn out of my body’ — ‘apocalyptic’ — ‘intracranial firecrackers’ — ‘exploding supernovae’.

“What does ring true is the book’s account of an ER scene in which Hazel, unable to speak, holds up fingers to indicate excruciating pain as a ‘9’ rather than a ’10’ – holding back the ’10’ – saving the ’10’ for something even worse. Our patients have learned to expect worse and have developed ways of steeling themselves for it. Call it stoic — but actually heroic.”

Along with the “confederation” promoted by the novel’s descriptions, Thomalla credits the book and the film with promoting worthwhile talks about “living” — conversations which can quiet some fears and apprehensions. She does note that while patients value support and morale-boosting they are put off by pity.

“Yeah, for now, I’m sick — but I don’t want to be sickened further by pity,” explained a 16-year-old. “I don’t need something else to be overwhelmed by. I don’t need something else to upset me. I don’t need gifts. I need company — conversation that is normal; that has humor and wit. That’s my ticket to feeling normal and happy. Can such a sad story get my visitors to think happy? We’ll see.”

On October 19, 1959, William Gibson’s powerful drama The Miracle Worker had its Broadway premiere at the Playhouse Theatre. Starring Anne Bancroft as Anne Sullivan and a very young Patty Duke as Helen Keller (by the time I saw the production, Suzanne Pleshette had replaced Anne Bancroft), Gibson’s drama portrayed the crucial moment when Helen Keller (who was deaf, blind, and mute) was able to connect the dots and start to associate signed words with sounds. In the following news clip from 1930, Keller and Sullivan recall that breakthrough moment.

Keller’s realization that “I am not dumb now” marked a huge step forward from the conventional terminology which had labeled her as “deaf, dumb, and blind.” As modern medicine developed a deeper understanding of people with hearing and visual disabilities, new technologies led to the development of pioneering treatments with stem cells, bionic eyes, cochlear implants, and a greater sensitivity to the needs of those who are deaf and/or blind.

With more and more professional resources available to people with visual and auditory handicaps (and greater support networks for them), many have been able to live independently in ways that were previously unimaginable. A charming six-minute short film by Chaitanya Gopinath titled Lunch with Yoshi (which was screened during the 2014 San Francisco International Film Festival) follows a blind woman around Bangkok as she shops, rides the city’s mass transit, and prepares lunch for a visiting friend.

Poster art for Lunch With Yoshi

As part of his research and preparation for filming, Gopinath tried his luck riding Bangkok’s Skytrain while blindfolded so that he could experience what it is like for his protagonist to rely on the kindness of strangers to help her navigate her way through a busy city. Not only did the experience help him understand the challenges someone like Yoshimi Horiuchi faces on a daily basis, it made him acutely aware of his own abilities as a sighted person.

* * * * * * * * * *

The death of actress Phyllis Frelich brought back memories of my first exposure to Mark Medoff’s award-winning play, Children of a Lesser God. Back in the 1970s, the New York City Opera used to perform at the Los Angeles Music Center following its fall season at Lincoln Center. Having attended many performances by New York City Opera while I was in college, I didn’t hesitate to travel to Los Angeles for a week’s vacation.

During one trip late in 1979, I caught a matinee performance of Medoff’s play at the Mark Taper Forum and was completely blown away by Frelich’s impassioned performance as Sarah Norman, a deaf woman who was formerly a student of James Leeds (played by John Rubinstein). Following its transfer to Broadway, Children of a Lesser God won the 1980 Tony Award for Best Play. Both Frelich and Rubenstein won Tony Awards for Best Actor.

Flash forward 35 years to the Berkeley Repertory Theatre’s new production of Tribes, the award-winning British dramedy by Nina Raine which deals with the plight of a young deaf man who was raised by parents who didn’t want him to learn sign language. Instead, Billy (James Caverly) was taught how to read lips and became quite proficient at it. Unfortunately, Billy’s nuclear family is a toxic mess.

• His father, Christopher (Paul Whitworth), is an academic bully who talks over everyone else and derives a somewhat perverse pleasure from intimidating people he assumes to be his intellectual inferiors. Try to imagine John McCain as an extremely condescending, long-tenured university professor who has stayed too long at the fair.
• Billy’s mother, Beth (Anita Carey), has literary aspirations which are frequently derided by her husband. Although she often manages to hold her own against Christopher’s narcissistic bullying, after long years of marriage her admiration for his intellect has worn thin. With her three grown children having recently returned to live at home, she has plenty to deal with.

Paul Whitworth (Christopher) and Anita Carey (Beth)
in Tribes (Photo by: Mellopix, Inc.)

• Billy’s sister, Ruth (Elizabeth Morton), is desperate to find a boyfriend and wonders what she lacks that could make her life so boring. Despite a lack of any talent or training, she imagines she could become an opera singer. Some members of the audience might find Ruth (who is nowhere near as intellectually gifted as the rest of her family) to bear a striking resemblance to Meg Griffin on Family Guy.
• Billy’s brother, Dan (Dan Clegg), is a selfish, depressed, and desperately lonely soul who suffers from auditory hallucinations. He is terrified that Billy might become independent and leave him alone.

Dan Clegg (Dan) and James Caverly (Billy)
in Tribes (Photo by: Mellopix, Inc.)

One night, Billy goes to a party for deaf people and meets an attractive young woman named Sylvia (Nell Geisslinger). The daughter of deaf parents, Sylvia has been able to hear and speak since birth but is starting to lose her hearing.

Whereas Billy has gone through life lip reading, Sylvia has always used sign language to communicate with her parents. She sees herself belonging to the “Deaf Community” (where deaf people communicate by signing) as opposed to the “deaf community” (where deaf people essentially rely on lip reading).

Not only does Sylvia’s interest in Billy inspire him to learn sign language, it also leads to a peculiar job opportunity which, as Billy shows increasing talent, raises the possibility of him leaving his family’s home and moving in with Sylvia.

James Caverly (Billy) and Nell Geisslinger (Sylvia)
in Tribes (Photo by: Mellopix, Inc.)

The bookshelves in Todd Rosenthal’s intricately designed set are overflowing with the kind of collection that would make any university professor proud. But in many ways, the inability of Billy’s family to truly listen to what he is trying to say (or even try to understand his feelings) leads to a bitter confrontation when Billy realizes that he belongs with a tribe of deaf people who sign rather than his nuclear family. The Act I finale — in which the family gathers around the piano to listen to Sylvia play music as Billy stands silently, not hearing any sound and unable to participate in a group activity with the people he loves — is heartbreaking.

Jonathan Moscone has done a superb job of staging Tribes for Berkeley Rep with a keen focus on demonstrating how some people don’t listen and, whether by choice or because of a physical disability, some people don’t hear. Thanks to Jake Rodriguez’s sound design, the audience is able to understand the difference in the types of noise that Billy’s family hears, Billy doesn’t hear, and Sylvia is starting to hear replacing the sound of her voice and what she has grown up able to hear.

As Billy’s situation with his family, with Sylvia, and with his new job starts to deteriorate, it’s a rare treat to witness Caverly’s impassioned performance rise to the boiling point. The following clip from the show’s 2010 world premiere in London offers fascinating insights into the research Raine did while writing the play and how some of her consultants reacted to its premiere. To my mind, this clip offers the best advertisement to convince theatergoers they should purchase tickets to a performance of Tribes (Sacramento’s Capital Stage will open its 2014-2015 season with its own production of Tribes in September).

To read more of George Heymont go to My Cultural Landscape

The NCAA is taking another look into academic misconduct at North Carolina after an investigation uncovered new information.

UNC athletic director Bubba Cunningham said Monday the school has received “a verbal notice of inquiry” that the NCAA will reopen its 2011 investigation in a case that began as an offshoot of a 2010 probe into the football program. “The NCAA has determined that additional people with information and others who were previously uncooperative might now be willing to speak with the enforcement staff,” Cunningham said in a statement.

Investigations have uncovered fraud in a department with classes featuring significant athlete enrollments, including lecture classes that did not meet and were treated as independent studies requiring only a research paper at semester’s end. Former U.S. Justice Department official Kenneth Wainstein is conducting an independent probe into the problems in the formerly named African and Afro-American Studies (AFAM) department, and has met with two key figures — former chairman Julius Nyang’oro and retired administrator Deborah Crowder — who had not cooperated with earlier school investigations.

Cunningham said Wainstein was instructed to share information he learned with the NCAA. Wainstein said he and colleague Joseph Jay have met with NCAA officials to do that.

“We will continue to provide the NCAA with any relevant information that we learn during the remainder of our investigation,” Wainstein said in a statement. “… The shared information is subject to the NCAA’s confidentiality rules, and it will not be disclosed to university personnel or anyone else until we issue our public report.”

A 2012 investigation led by former Gov. Jim Martin found problems, including unauthorized grade changes, in the department stretching back to the 1990s while directing blame to Nyang’oro and Crowder. Ex-UNC learning specialist Mary Willingham has said the “paper classes” were used to help keep athletes eligible.

Nyang’oro was indicted on a felony fraud count in December, charged with being paid $12,000 to teach a summer 2011 lecture course that did not meet and was treated as an independent study filled with football players. Orange County district attorney Jim Woodall said last week he is considering dropping that charge because Nyang’oro has cooperated with Wainstein and the school recovered the money.

The NCAA and the school jointly investigated the AFAM problems in fall 2011 during the NCAA’s probe of violations within the football program, which led to sanctions in March 2012.

That August, the school said the NCAA had found no rules violations. The NCAA later told UNC officials that it was not considering additional investigation or charges connected to the AFAM department, according to September 2013 email exchange obtained through a public-records request.

But the NCAA’s statement Monday said its enforcement staff “is exploring this new information to ensure an exhaustive investigation is conducted based on all available information.”

The announcement comes less than a month after former men’s basketball player Rashad McCants — a top player on the 2005 NCAA championship team — told ESPN’s “Outside the Lines” that he took several no-show classes in the department and that coach Roy Williams was aware of them. He also said tutors wrote research papers for him.

Williams and the remaining members of that team have denied involvement in academic wrongdoing.

Martin’s probe began shortly after an incomplete transcript for former football star Julius Peppers surfaced on the university’s website. It showed Peppers, who played from 1999-2001, made some of his highest grades in the AFAM department where he was majoring, which could’ve helped ensure his eligibility for competition.

The NCAA originally penalized the football program with a one-year bowl ban, scholarship reductions and probation for improper benefits and academic misconduct violations, the latter focused on a tutor providing too much assistance on papers to players.

___

Follow Aaron Beard on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/aaronbeardap