加载中...
TIME fashion

Amanda Brooks: Cannes and the Case for High Heels

Amanda Brooks is a writer and the former fashion director of Barneys New York. Her new book, Always Pack A Party Dress and Other Lessons Learned From a (Half) Life in Fashion, comes out next week.

Yes, there are perfectly good reasons to go flat, but the point is to respect red-carpet glamour and elegance

When I first saw pictures of Inès de la Fressange walking into a film premiere in an evening gown and flat sandals at the Cannes Film Festival in 2011, I thought to myself, Wow. Now that’s style. She had managed to create an appropriately glamorous look that was completely red-carpet ready, presumably comfortable, and very much her. How did she pull this off? I asked myself, knowing that every woman who wears heels has moments when she would trade them in for flats in a heartbeat if she knew she could still look every bit as chic and festive. But let’s remember that Inès has been voted best dressed on many lists, many times — over First Ladies and film stars and other internationally envied stylish women. Ines is beautiful, tall, and supremely confident in the seemingly effortless way she wears her clothes. She also never wears heels. In fact, I don’t even think heels would suit her tall frame and distinct feminine-masculine look. Don’t we all wish we could be her? Yes.

 

Ines de la Fressange attends the Premiere of "Irrational Man" during the 68th annual Cannes Film Festival on May 15, 2015 in Cannes, France.
Pascal Le Segretain—Getty ImagesInes de la Fressange attends the Premiere of “Irrational Man” during the 68th annual Cannes Film Festival on May 15, 2015 in Cannes, France.

Alas, we are not.

The kerfuffle at Cannes this week comes perhaps not from women who opted for a more practical shoe, but from a sense that the dress code that lends Cannes its glamour and pomp appeared to be relaxing beyond the organizer’s comfort zone. As a longtime fashion enthusiast, I am not one to adhere to rules that can’t be broken, and for the record, I haven’t seen the women or the outfits who were ostensibly punished. I am also clear that attributing Cannes’ weakening dress code to a woman’s shoes is both ignorant and offensive. But forgoing heels at a black tie event is a fashion risk — it needs to be well considered, intentional, and executed with confidence.

Would I wear flats to Cannes? No. I’ve broken many rules regarding fashion formality in my time, including once wearing trousers and another time shorts — yes, shorts! (albeit sequinned ones) — to the exceedingly formal Met Ball hosted by fashion’s high priestess Anna Wintour. But I just wouldn’t feel the way I want to feel on a red carpet in flats. Heels empower me to stand more formally; to both literally and figuratively elevate myself. At 5’9” you couldn’t call me short by any means, but I would feel diminished without the elegance of those few extra inches. I am also vigilant about wearing shoes I can walk in, however. There is nothing — nothing! — as unattractive as a woman who stumbles around in ill-fitting sky-high heels.

All that said, Inès is not the only woman I’ve seen carry off evening formality sans stilettos. My friend Alexandra hasn’t been able to wear heels throughout her adult life for medical reasons, and she is always among the absolute chicest at any formal event. After years of attention paid to getting the look right, she tends to favor long gowns or skirts, concealing her flat shoes underneath a swath of richly colored silk or organza. Or she embraces the more tomboy option of wearing embellished ballerinas or sandals with tailored trousers and an appropriately formal jacket, perhaps embroidered or beaded.

But Alexandra and Inès are both fabulous and inspired exceptions. Rocking up to Cannes in Converse sneakers — as Emily Blunt would have it — is not the obvious answer. Respecting the festival’s mandate to represent the film industry’s tradition of glamour and elegance by choosing the most stylish and empowering shoe for you and your look, height notwithstanding, would be a goal I think we all — as women — could adhere to.

 

Amanda Brooks is a writer and the former fashion director of Barneys New York. Her new book, Always Pack A Party Dress and Other Lessons Learned From a (Half) Life in Fashion, comes out next week.

TIME Ideas hosts the world's leading voices, providing commentary and expertise on the most compelling events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. To submit a piece, email ideas@time.com.

TIME Religion

2016 Candidates Must Step Up to the Pope Francis Challenge

President Barack Obama participates in a discussion on poverty with moderator E.J. Dionne, Jr. and Robert Putman Professor at Harvard University, at Georgetown University May 12, 2015 in Washington, DC.
Mark Wilson—Getty Images President Barack Obama participates in a discussion on poverty with moderator E.J. Dionne, Jr. and Robert Putman Professor at Harvard University, at Georgetown University May 12, 2015 in Washington, DC.

Christopher Hale is executive director at Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and the co-founder of Millennial.

Don't fight cultural wars and ignore poverty

During the first year of his pontificate, Pope Francis famously said that the Church shouldn’t become too “obsessed” with only abortion, gay marriage, and contraception. A group of faith leaders in the United States apparently got the memo. Last week, a group of Catholic and Evangelical leaders gathered at a major policy summit at Georgetown University to discuss how they can work together with political leaders to defeat domestic and global poverty.

Sponsored by the university’s Initiative on Catholic Social Thought and Public Life, the summit included a panel with President Barack Obama. During the panel, the president suggested that tackling poverty should be a higher priority for religious groups:

There is great caring and great concern, but when it comes to what are you really going to the mat for, what’s the defining issue, when you’re talking in your congregations, what’s the thing that is really going to capture the essence of who we are as Christians, or as Catholics, or what have you, that [fighting poverty] is oftentimes viewed as a “nice to have” relative to an issue like abortion. That’s not across the board, but there sometimes has been that view, and certainly that’s how it’s perceived in our political circles.

These comments suggesting that churches have focused too much on cultural wars and not enough on poverty caused quite a backlash among the conservative Christian community, with The New York Times’ Ross Douthat leading the charge.

It’s true that the president’s remarks were a bit over the top. There is no greater defender of the poor in the United States than the Christian community. With God’s grace, we started hospitals to care for the sick. We’ve established orphanages and soup kitchens from coast to coast, and we’re part of the largest charitable organizations in the nation, bringing comfort to those who are suffering.

And yes, we defend the dignity of every human life, but we don’t stop at birth. Because while life might begin at conception, we know it doesn’t end there. President Obama knows this reality firsthand. His first job out of college was to organize local residents in the South Side of Chicago to respond to an economic downturn spurred on by local factory closings. His work was sponsored by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development.

But there is something to be said about the president’s suggestion. As my colleague Robert Christian points out in Millennial, while the Church hasn’t been MIA, it hasn’t done enough to help the poor:

The reality is that some Catholic leaders, including bishops, are also to blame for the state of the culture war, its impact on the Church, and the way it has distracted many from a full commitment to the poor. The Catholics who have distorted the theological concept of intrinsic evil to support their right-wing political agenda are complicit. Those who have stretched prudential reasoning to cover imprudence and insincere politicians peddling ideologies infected by hyperindividualism are complicit. Those who use the body and blood of Jesus Christ as a tool to coerce politicians into conformity on just a couple of political issues, ignoring those affecting the poor, are complicit.

The times have changed. While Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority brought Catholics and Evangelicals together in the 1980s to promote traditional family values, prayer in school, and to outlaw abortion, today’s coalition has a much broader and altogether different agenda.

President Obama might rightly complain of Christian leaders’ efforts to address poverty in the United States, but this new faith coalition is leading the fight. Under their direction, Obama’s successor won’t have much to complain about, and will be expected to have a better, more robust approach to addressing the scandal of poverty in our nation.

TIME Ideas hosts the world's leading voices, providing commentary and expertise on the most compelling events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. To submit a piece, email ideas@time.com.

TIME Education

Ed Helms to Grads: Define Yourselves

Ed Helms gave this commencement speech at the University of Virginia

TIME Education

President Obama to Cadets: Lead the Way on Fighting Climate Change

President Barack Obama gave this commencement speech at United States Coast Guard Academy

Thank you! Thank you very much. Everybody, please have a seat. Class of 2015 — ahoy!

There are now fewer days to go until the Class of 2015 graduates than — never mind. There are now zero days until the Class of 2015 graduates.

Thank you, Admiral Zukunft, for your kind introduction and for your leadership of our Coast Guardsmen on all seven continents. Governor Malloy, Secretary Johnson, Ambassador, distinguished guests, faculty and staff, families and friends.

And Admiral Stosz, as you prepare to conclude your time as Superintendent, thank you for your outstanding stewardship of this Academy. You made history as the first woman ever to lead one of our nation’s service academies. And I know you’ll keep making history, because I was proud to nominate you for your third star and as the Coast Guard’s next Deputy Commandant for Mission Support.

It is wonderful to be with all of you here today on this beautiful day. Michelle sends her greetings as well. She is the proud sponsor of the Coast Guard cutter Stratton — which is tough to beat. But as Admiral Zukunft pointed out, both the Coast Guard and I were born on the same day. So I want you all to know, every birthday from now on I will be thinking about the Coast Guard.

Now, the Coast Guard may be the smallest of our services, but I have to say you may also be the loudest. Whenever I visit our military bases, there are always lots of soldiers and sailors and airmen and Marines. They make a lot of noise. But wherever I am — across the country or around the world, including Afghanistan — nowhere near an ocean — the most determined cheer from the crowd comes from our proud Coast Guardsmen, because usually there might only be one or two of them.

As Paul mentioned, in my State of the Union address this year, I mentioned how I’ve seen America at its best when commissioning our new officers, including here in New London. And it’s true, some folks across the country didn’t quite get the reference. One person tweeted that they were pretty sure I just made this up. Then there was one person in town who asked, “Did Obama name drop New London?” So let me do it again. It is a great honor to be back in New London, at the United States Coast Guard Academy to salute the newest ensigns of America’s oldest, continuous maritime service.

Cadets, this is a day to celebrate all that you’ve achieved over these past four years. You have excelled at one of the most selective and rigorous academic institutions in America. You’ve held yourselves to a high code of conduct, proven yourself worthy to be called commissioned officers in the United States Coast Guard.

You pushed yourselves physically — from Swab Summer to beating your officers at basketball and softball and football. You braced up, squared your meals, spent Friday nights waxing the floors — maybe a little “Rodeo Buffing.” I saw the video. That looks dangerous, by the way. You made your mark, and you will be remembered. In Chase Hall. In this stadium. And at Hanafin’s and Bulkeley House. Which reminds me, in keeping with longstanding tradition, I hereby absolve all cadets serving restrictions for minor offenses. Minor offenses.

You came together as one team. We are joined today by Commander Merle Smith — the first African American graduate of this Academy — Class of 1966, a decorated Vietnam veteran. His legacy endures in all of you — because the graduating Class of 2015 is the most diverse in Academy history. And you took care of each other, like family. Today we honor the memory of your classmate from the Republic of Georgia, Soso, along with Beso. Their spirits will live on in the partnerships you forge with Coast Guards all over the world.

Today, you take your rightful place in the Long Blue Line. For Marina Stevens and her family, it is a very long line. Where is Marina? Just wave at me real quick. There she is right there. Marina’s dad is Coast Guard civilian. Her mom, Janet, an Academy graduate, was a Coast Guard captain and will pin on Marina’s shoulder boards today. Marina’s grandfather was a Coast Guardsman. Her great-grandfather joined the U.S. Lighthouse Service in 1918. That’s four generations, spanning nearly the entire life of the modern Coast Guard. No wonder she’s named Marina. It’s in her blood.

And, Cadets, I know that none of you reached this day alone. So join me in giving a huge round of applause to your mentors and your incredible parents and your family members — so many of them, themselves, veterans as well. Please give them a big round of applause.

Class of 2015, I’m here as your Commander-in-Chief, on behalf of the American people, to say thanks to each of you. Thanks for choosing to serve — for stepping up, for giving up the comforts of civilian life, for putting on that uniform. Thank you for the service you are about to render — the life of purpose that you’ve embraced, the risks that you’ve accepted and the sacrifices that you will make.

But I’m not here to just sing your praises. I want to speak to you about what comes next. Soon, you’ll fan out across the Coast Guard and some of you will go to sectors and shore command. Some of you will start your duty aboard cutters. Some of you will start flight training. America needs you. And we need the Coast Guard more than ever.

We need you to safeguard our ports against all threats, including terrorism. We need you to respond in times of disaster or distress and lead your rescue teams as they jump out of perfectly good helicopters. We need you in the Caribbean and Central America, interdicting drugs before they reach our streets and damage our kids. We need you in the Middle East; in the Gulf; alongside our Navy; in places like West Africa, where you helped keep the ports open so that the world could fight a deadly disease. We need you in the Asia Pacific, to help our partners train their own coast guards to uphold maritime security and freedom of navigation in waters vital to our global economy.

These are all demanding missions. The pace of operations is intense. And these are tight fiscal times for all our services, including the Coast Guard. But we are going to keep working to give you the boats and the cutters and the aircraft that you need to complete the missions we ask of you.

We’re moving ahead with new Fast Response Cutters, new Offshore Patrol Cutters. We’re on track to have a full fleet of new National Security Cutters — the most advanced in history. And I’ve made it clear that I will not accept a budget that continues these draconian budget cuts called sequestration, because our nation and our military and our Coast Guard deserve better.

And this brings me to the challenge I want to focus on today — one where our Coast Guardsmen are already on the front lines, and that, perhaps more than any other, will shape your entire careers — and that’s the urgent need to combat and adapt to climate change.

As a nation, we face many challenges, including the grave threat of terrorism. And as Americans, we will always do everything in our power to protect our country. Yet even as we meet threats like terrorism, we cannot, and we must not, ignore a peril that can affect generations.

Now, I know there are still some folks back in Washington who refuse to admit that climate change is real. And on a day like today, it’s hard to get too worried about it. There are folks who will equivocate. They’ll say, “You know, I’m not a scientist.” Well, I’m not either. But the best scientists in the world know that climate change is happening. Our analysts in the intelligence community know climate change is happening. Our military leaders — generals and admirals, active duty and retired — know it’s happening. Our homeland security professionals know it is happening. And our Coast Guard knows it’s happening.

The science is indisputable. The fossil fuels we burn release carbon dioxide, which traps heat. And the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are now higher than they have been in 800,000 years. The planet is getting warmer. Fourteen of the 15 hottest years on record have been in the past 15 years. Last year was the planet’s warmest year ever recorded.

Our scientists at NASA just reported that some of the sea ice around Antarctica is breaking up even faster than expected. The world’s glaciers are melting, pouring new water into the ocean. Over the past century, the world sea level rose by about eight inches. That was in the last century; by the end of this century, it’s projected to rise another one to four feet.

Cadets, the threat of a changing climate cuts to the very core of your service. You’ve been drawn to water — like the poet who wrote, “the heart of the great ocean sends a thrilling pulse through me.” You know the beauty of the sea, but you also know its unforgiving power.

Here at the Academy, climate change — understanding the science and the consequences — is part of the curriculum, and rightly so, because it will affect everything that you do in your careers. Some of you have already served in Alaska and aboard icebreakers, and you know the effects. As America’s Maritime Guardian, you’ve pledged to remain always ready — Semper Paratus — ready for all threats. And climate change is one of those most severe threats.

And this is not just a problem for countries on the coasts, or for certain regions of the world. Climate change will impact every country on the planet. No nation is immune. So I’m here today to say that climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security. And make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country. And so we need to act — and we need to act now.

After all, isn’t that the true hallmark of leadership? When you’re on deck, standing your watch, you stay vigilant. You plan for every contingency. And if you see storm clouds gathering, or dangerous shoals ahead, you don’t sit back and do nothing. You take action — to protect your ship, to keep your crew safe. Anything less is negligence. It is a dereliction of duty. And so, too, with climate change. Denying it, or refusing to deal with it endangers our national security. It undermines the readiness of our forces.

It’s been said of life on the sea — “the pessimist complains about the wind, the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” Cadets, like you, I reject pessimism. We know what we as Americans can achieve when we set ourselves to great endeavors. We are, by nature, optimists — but we’re not blind optimists. We know that wishful thinking in the face of all evidence to the contrary would set us on a course for disaster. If we are to meet this threat of climate change, we must be realists. We have to readjust the sails.

That’s why confronting climate change is now a key pillar of American global leadership. When I meet with leaders around the world, it’s often at the top of our agenda — a core element of our diplomacy. And you are part of the first generation of officers to begin your service in a world where the effects of climate change are so clearly upon us. It will shape how every one of our services plan, operate, train, equip, and protect their infrastructure, their capabilities, today and for the long term. So let me be specific on how your generation will have to lead the way to both prepare ourselves and how to prevent the worst effects in the future.

Around the world, climate change increases the risk of instability and conflict. Rising seas are already swallowing low-lying lands, from Bangladesh to Pacific islands, forcing people from their homes. Caribbean islands and Central American coasts are vulnerable, as well. Globally, we could see a rise in climate change refugees. And I guarantee you the Coast Guard will have to respond. Elsewhere, more intense droughts will exacerbate shortages of water and food, increase competition for resources, and create the potential for mass migrations and new tensions. All of which is why the Pentagon calls climate change a “threat multiplier.”

Understand, climate change did not cause the conflicts we see around the world. Yet what we also know is that severe drought helped to create the instability in Nigeria that was exploited by the terrorist group Boko Haram. It’s now believed that drought and crop failures and high food prices helped fuel the early unrest in Syria, which descended into civil war in the heart of the Middle East. So, increasingly, our military and our combatant commands, our services — including the Coast Guard — will need to factor climate change into plans and operations, because you need to be ready.

Around the world, climate change will mean more extreme storms. No single weather event can be blamed solely on climate change But Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines gave us a possible glimpse of things to come — one of the worst cyclones ever recorded; thousands killed, many more displaced, billions of dollars in damage, and a massive international relief effort that included the United States military and its Coast Guard. So more extreme storms will mean more humanitarian missions to deliver lifesaving help. Our forces will have to be ready.

As Admiral Zukunft already mentioned, climate change means Arctic sea ice is vanishing faster than ever. By the middle of this century, Arctic summers could be essentially ice free. We’re witnessing the birth of a new ocean — new sea lanes, more shipping, more exploration, more competition for the vast natural resources below.

In Alaska, we have more than 1,000 miles of Arctic coastline. The United States is an Arctic nation, and we have a great interest in making sure that the region is peaceful, that its indigenous people and environment are protected, and that its resources are managed responsibly in partnership with other nations. And that means all of you are going to have to step up — because few know the Arctic better than the U.S. Coast Guard. You’ve operated there across nearly 150 years. And as the Arctic opens, the role that the Coast Guard plays will only grow. I believe that our interests in the Arctic demand that we continue to invest in an enduring Coast Guard icebreaking capacity.

I was proud to nominate your last commandant, Admiral Papp, as our special representative for the Arctic. And as the U.S. chairs the Arctic Council this year, I’m committed to advancing our interests in this critical region because we have to be ready in the Arctic, as well.

Climate change, and especially rising seas, is a threat to our homeland security, our economic infrastructure, the safety and health of the American people. Already, today, in Miami and Charleston, streets now flood at high tide. Along our coasts, thousands of miles of highways and roads, railways, energy facilities are all vulnerable. It’s estimated that a further increase in sea level of just one foot by the end of this century could cost our nation $200 billion.

In New York Harbor, the sea level is already a foot higher than a century ago — which was one of the reasons Superstorm Sandy put so much of lower Manhattan underwater. During Sandy, the Coast Guard mounted a heroic response, along with our National Guard and Reserve. But rising seas and stronger storms will mean more disaster response missions. And we need the Coast Guard to be ready, because you are America’s maritime first responder.

Climate change poses a threat to the readiness of our forces. Many of our military installations are on the coast, including, of course, our Coast Guard stations. Around Norfolk, high tides and storms increasingly flood parts of our Navy base and an airbase. In Alaska, thawing permafrost is damaging military facilities. Out West, deeper droughts and longer wildfires could threaten training areas our troops depend on.

So politicians who say they care about military readiness ought to care about this, as well. Just as we’re helping American communities prepare to deal with the impacts of climate change, we have to help our bases and ports, as well. Not just with stronger seawalls and natural barriers, but with smarter, more resilient infrastructure — because when the seas rise and storms come, we all have to be ready.

Now, everything I’ve discussed with you so far is about preparing for the impacts of climate change. But we need to be honest — such preparation and adaptation alone will not be enough. As men and women in uniform, you know that it can be just as important, if not more important, to prevent threats before they can cause catastrophic harm. And only way — the only way — the world is going to prevent the worst effects of climate change is to slow down the warming of the planet.

Some warming is now inevitable. But there comes a point when the worst effects will be irreversible. And time is running out. And we all know what needs to happen. It’s no secret. The world has to finally start reducing its carbon emissions — now. And that’s why I’ve committed the United States to leading the world on this challenge.

Over the past six years, we’ve done more than ever to reduce harmful emissions, unprecedented investments to cut energy waste in our homes and building, standards to double the fuel efficiency of our vehicles. We’re using more clean energy than ever before — more solar, more wind. It’s all helped us reduce our carbon emissions more than any other advanced nation. And today, we can be proud that our carbon pollution is near its lowest levels in almost two decades. But we’ve got to do more.

So, going forward, I’ve committed to doubling the pace at which we cut carbon pollution. And that means we all have to step up. And it will not be easy. It will require sacrifice, and the politics will be tough. But there is no other way. We have to make our homes and buildings more efficient. We have to invest in more energy research and renewable technologies. We have to move ahead with standards to cut the amount of carbon pollution in our power plants. And working with other nations, we have to achieve a strong global agreement this year to start reducing the total global emission — because every nation must do its part. Every nation.

So this will be tough. But as so often is the case, our men and women in uniform show us the way. They’re used to sacrifice and they are used to doing hard stuff. Class of 2015, you’ve built new equipment that uses less energy. You’ve designed new vessels with fewer harmful emissions. Stephen Horvath, selected as a Fulbright Scholar, will research new technologies for renewable energies. The Coast Guard is building more fuel-efficient cutters. So you’re already leading. And, Cadets, as you go forward, I challenge you to keep imagining and building the new future we need — and make your class motto your life’s work: “To go where few dare.” This is a place where we need you.

Across our military, our bases and ports are using more solar and wind, which helps save money that we can use to improve readiness. The Army is pursuing new, lighter, more fuel-efficient vehicles. The Air Force F-22 broke the sound barrier using biofuels. And the Navy runs an entire carrier strike group — the Green Fleet — with biofuels. Our Marines have deployed to Afghanistan with portable solar panels, lightening their load and reducing dangerous resupply missions. So fighting climate change and using energy wisely also makes our forces more nimble and more ready. And that’s something that should unite us as Americans. This cannot be subject to the usual politics and the usual rhetoric. When storms gather, we get ready.

And I want to leave you with a story that captures the persistence and the patriotism that this work requires, because this is a nation made up of folks who know how to do hard things. Down in the front row is Dr. Olivia Hooker. In 1921, in Tulsa, Oklahoma, when she was just six years old, her African American community was attacked by white mobs — it was a horrific racial incident. And hundreds of innocent African Americans were killed. The mobs destroyed her father’s clothing store. They looted her house. They even burned the little clothes for her doll.

And Olivia could have given in to bitterness. She could have been pessimistic about her country. Instead, she made it better. So in World War II, she enlisted as a SPAR, becoming the first African American woman in the Coast Guard. As a yeoman in Boston, she served with distinction. By the time the war was won, she was discharged, she was a petty officer second class.

With the GI Bill, Olivia earned her master’s, then her doctorate. She has been a professor and mentor to her students, a passionate advocate for Americans with disabilities, a psychologist counseling young children, a caregiver at the height of the AIDS epidemic, a tireless voice for justice and equality. A few months ago, Olivia turned 100 years old.

So, Olivia, you’re going to have to tell us you’re secret. She’s still as sharp as they come, and as fearless.

In Yonkers, New York, she even still volunteers as a member of the Coast Guard Auxiliary, and was determined to be here with us today.

So, Dr. Hooker, thank you. You’re an inspiration. One hundred years old.

So Dr. Hooker has led a remarkable life. But this is what she says — “It’s not about you, or me. It’s about what we can give to this world.”

Cadets, you’re at the start of your careers. And we cannot know, each of us, how many days we will walk this Earth. We can’t guarantee we’re all going to live to 100. But what we can do is live each day to its fullest. What we can do is look squarely at what will make the biggest difference for future generations and be willing to tackle those challenges.

And as you embark on your life of service, as you man your stations, and head to the seas, and take to the skies, should the sea begin to surge and the waves swell and the wind blows hard against your face, I want you to think back to this moment — to feel what you feel in your hearts today. And if you remember all that you’ve learned here on the Thames — how you came here and came together, out of many one, to achieve as a team what you could never do alone — if you resolve to stay worthy of traditions that endure — honor, respect, devotion to duty — if you heed the wisdom and humility of a petty officer second class from Oklahoma, to think not of yourself, but what you can give to this world — then I’m confident that you will truly go where few dare. And you will rise to meet the challenges that not only face our country, but face our planet. And your legacy will be a nation that is stronger and safer for generations to come.

So, Class of 2015 — thank you for your service. Congratulations. God bless you. God bless all our Coast Guardsmen. God bless our United States of America. Thank you.

Read more 2015 commencement speeches:

Alan Alda to Grads: Everything in Life Takes Time

Bill Nye to Grads: Change the World

Colin Powell to Grads: Learn to Lead

Eric Schmidt to Grads: You Can Write the Code for All of Us

Snapchat CEO Evan Spiegel to Grads: ‘This Is the World We Were Born Into, and We Are Responsible for It’

Gwen Ifill to Grads: If You See Something, Do Something

GE CEO Jeff Immelt to Grads: Become a Force for Change

Jorge Ramos’ Message for Journalists: Take a Stand

Katie Couric to Grads: Get Yourself Noticed

Ken Burns to Grads: Set Things Right Again

Kenneth Cole to Grads: Find Your Voice

Madeleine Albright to Grads: The World Needs You

Mark Ruffalo to Grads: Buck the System

Matthew McConaughey to Grads: Always Play Like an Underdog

Maya Rudolph to Grads: Create Your Own Destiny

Mellody Hobson to Grads: Set Your Sights High

Meredith Vieira to Grads: Be the Left Shark

Mitt Romney to Grads: America Needs You to Serve

Salman Rushdie to Grads: Try to Be Larger Than Life

Samantha Power to Grads: Start Changing the World By ‘Acting As If’

Stephen Colbert to Grads: You Are Your Own Professor Now

Tim Cook to Grads: Tune Out the Cynics

TIME Education

Gwen Ifill to Grads: If You See Something, Do Something

Gwen Ifill gave this commencement speech at Utica College

TIME faith

The Theology of a Biker Gang

What happened in Waco is a microcosm of our world situation

patheoslogo_blue

Five rival biker gangs descended upon a Twin Peaks restaurant in Waco, Texas on Sunday. Hundreds of gang members began stabbing, beating, and shooting each other. Weapons included chains, knives, clubs, and guns. When the fight ended, 9 people were dead, 18 were sent to the hospital, and more than 170 people were arrested.

Waco police Sargent W. Patrick Swanton stated, “In my nearly 35 years of law enforcement experience, this is the most violent and gruesome scene that I have dealt with.”

One of the biker gangs is called the “Bandidos.” They originated in Texas during the 1960s. In 2013, federal law enforcement produced a national gang report that identified the Bandidos as one of the five most dangerous biker gang threats in the US.

And they have a theology and an anthropology that you should know about. They’re summed up in one of their slogans:

God forgives. Bandidos don’t.

We can easily dismiss that slogan as a biker gangs attempt to intimidate, but do not dismiss it. That pithy statement tells a profound truth about both God and humanity.

Anthropology of a Biker Gang: Bandidos Don’t Forgive

Let’s start with the anthropology. When it comes to forgiveness, we are all much more like a biker gang than we’d like to admit. Take what happened in Waco, for example. A group of rival gangs come together to fight because they have a relationship based on hostility. They refuse to forgive because biker gangs respond to violence with violence. That’s the pattern that they have developed.

It’s not just biker gangs who have that violent pattern. We all do. Violence is a human problem. For example, our political and judicial systems are based on that pattern. The same principle of retaliation that consumes biker gangs also consumes our culture.

Biker gangs such as the Bandidos are a violent and evil menace to society precisely because they refuse to forgive. And whenever we refuse to forgive, we become just like a violent and evil biker gang that is a menace to society.

Bandidos don’t forgive because we don’t forgive. Whenever someone insults us, we tend to insult back. When someone hits us, we tend to hit back. When someone attacks our country, we attack back. That’s the reciprocal pattern we tend to fall into when it comes to violence. For example, will our society respond to Sunday’s biker gang violence with forgiveness? No, we will respond with violent punishment of our own – maybe even the death penalty. Which leads me to ask some question:

How would the biker gang situation be different if one of the gangs decided to respond with forgiveness?

How would my life be different if I responded to insults with forgiveness?

How would the world situation be different if on 9/11 the United States decided to respond with forgiveness?

We will never know the answer to that last question. But what we do know is that our violent response didn’t solve the problem of violence that we face; in fact, it may only have perpetuated it.

Theology of a Biker Gang: God Forgives

And here’s the good news: God forgives. The theological truth of the Bandidos slogan is that God isn’t like us. God doesn’t hold on to grudges. God forgives.

But please understand that God’s forgiveness doesn’t make violence okay. Rather, it stops the cycle of violence by refusing to play the game. The best example of God’s radical forgiveness is on the cross. Jesus prays, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

God forgives.

That’s true. But the truth that the Bandidos biker gang doesn’t understand, and what we so often fail to understand as well, is that God calls us to participate in a culture of divine forgiveness, as opposed to a culture of human violence. The first step is to realize that we all have a tendency toward violence in thought, word, and deed; and so we are all in need of receiving God’s forgiveness. Then, as we receive from God’s well of abundant forgiveness, we are able to share that forgiveness with others.

There is an urgency in our current situation. What happened between 5 biker gangs in Waco is a microcosm of our world situation. Our hope in the face of violence is in following the God of radical forgiveness. As René Girard prophetically says in his book The Scapegoat, “The time has come for us to forgive one another. If we wait any longer there will not be enough time.”

Adam Ericksen has been the Director of Education at the Raven Foundation since its founding. He received his Masters in Theological Studies from Garrett Evangelical Seminary and has been the Youth Pastor at a UCC church since 2006. Adam’s interests include interfaith dialogue and using mimetic theory to read the Quran. He is the husband of Carrie, father of three, is 5’10, has brown eyes and does enjoy long walks on the beach. You can follow him on Twitter @adamericksen, friend him on Facebook, or do whatever people do on LinkedIn and Google+.

This article originally appeared on Patheos.

More from Patheos:

TIME Education

Ken Burns to Grads: Set Things Right Again

Ken Burns gave this commencement speech at Washington University in St. Louis

Chancellor Wrighton, members of the Board of Trustees and the Administration, distinguished faculty, Class of 1965, hard-working staff, my fellow honorees, proud and relieved parents, calm and serene grandparents, distracted but secretly pleased siblings, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, graduating students, good morning. I am deeply honored that you have asked me here to say a few words at this momentous occasion, that you might find what I have to say worthy of your attention on so important a day at this remarkable institution.

It had been my intention this morning to parcel out some good advice at the end of these remarks — the “goodness” of that being of course subjective in the extreme — but then I realized that this is the land of Mark Twain, and I came to the conclusion that any commentary today ought to be framed in the sublime shadow of this quote of his: “It’s not that the world is full of fools, it’s just that lightening isn’t distributed right.” More on Mr. Twain later.

I am in the business of history. It is my job to try to discern some patterns and themes from the past to help us interpret our dizzyingly confusing and sometimes dismaying present. Without a knowledge of that past, how can we possibly know where we are and, most important, where we are going? Over the years I’ve come to understand an important fact, I think: that we are not condemned to repeat, as the cliché goes and we are fond of quoting, what we don’t remember. That’s a clever, even poetic phrase, but not even close to the truth. Nor are there cycles of history, as the academic community periodically promotes. The Bible, Ecclesiastes to be specific, got it right, I think: “What has been will be again. What has been done will be done again. There is nothing new under the sun.”

What that means is that human nature never changes. Or almost never changes. We have continually superimposed our complex and contradictory nature over the random course of human events. All of our inherent strengths and weaknesses, our greed and generosity, our puritanism and our prurience parade before our eyes, generation after generation after generation. This often gives us the impression that history repeats itself. It doesn’t. It just rhymes, Mark Twain is supposed to have said…but he didn’t (more on Mr. Twain later.)

Over the many years of practicing, I have come to the realization that history is not a fixed thing, a collection of precise dates, facts and events (even cogent commencement quotes) that add up to a quantifiable, certain, confidently known, truth. It is a mysterious and malleable thing. And each generation rediscovers and re-examines that part of its past that gives its present, and most important, its future new meaning, new possibilities and new power.

Listen. For most of the forty years I’ve been making historical documentaries, I have been haunted and inspired by a handful of sentences from an extraordinary speech I came across early in my professional life by a neighbor of yours just up the road in Springfield, Illinois. In January of 1838, shortly before his 29th birthday, a tall, thin lawyer, prone to bouts of debilitating depression, addressed the Young Men’s Lyceum. The topic that day was national security. “At what point shall we expect the approach of danger?” he asked his audience. “…Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the Earth and crush us at a blow?” Then he answered his own question: “Never. All the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa … could not by force take a drink from the Ohio [River] or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years … If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.” It is a stunning, remarkable statement.

That young man was, of course, Abraham Lincoln, and he would go on to preside over the closest this country has ever come to near national suicide, our Civil War — fought over the meaning of freedom in America. And yet embedded in his extraordinary, disturbing and prescient words is a fundamental optimism that implicitly acknowledges the geographical force-field two mighty oceans and two relatively benign neighbors north and south have provided for us since the British burned the White House in the War of 1812.

We have counted on Abraham Lincoln for more than a century and a half to get it right when the undertow in the tide of those human events has threatened to overwhelm and capsize us. We always come back to him for the kind of sustaining vision of why we Americans still agree to cohere, why unlike any other country on earth, we are still stitched together by words and, most important, their dangerous progeny, ideas. We return to him for a sense of unity, conscience and national purpose. To escape what the late historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., said is our problem today: “too much pluribus, not enough unum.”

It seems to me that he gave our fragile experiment a conscious shock that enabled it to outgrow the monumental hypocrisy of slavery inherited at our founding and permitted us all, slave owner as well as slave, to have literally, as he put it at Gettysburg, “a new birth of freedom.”

Lincoln’s Springfield speech also suggests what is so great and so good about the people who inhabit this lucky and exquisite country of ours (that’s the world you now inherit): our work ethic, our restlessness, our innovation and our improvisation, our communities and our institutions of higher learning, our suspicion of power; the fact that we seem resolutely dedicated to parsing the meaning between individual and collective freedom; that we are dedicated to understanding what Thomas Jefferson really meant when he wrote that inscrutable phrase “the pursuit of Happiness.”

But the isolation of those two mighty oceans has also helped to incubate habits and patterns less beneficial to us: our devotion to money and guns; our certainty — about everything; our stubborn insistence on our own exceptionalism, blinding us to that which needs repair, our preoccupation with always making the other wrong, at an individual as well as global level.

And then there is the issue of race, which was foremost on the mind of Lincoln back in 1838. It is still here with us today. The jazz trumpeter Wynton Marsalis told me that healing this question of race was what “the kingdom needed in order to be well.” Before the enormous strides in equality achieved in statutes and laws in the 150 years since the Civil War that Lincoln correctly predicted would come are in danger of being undone by our still imperfect human nature and by politicians who now insist on a hypocritical color-blindness — after four centuries of discrimination. That discrimination now takes on new, sometimes subtler, less obvious but still malevolent forms today. The chains of slavery have been broken, thank God, and so too has the feudal dependence of sharecroppers as the vengeful Jim Crow era recedes (sort of) into the distant past. But now in places like — but not limited to — your other neighbors a few miles as the crow flies from here in Ferguson, we see the ghastly remnants of our great shame emerging still, the shame Lincoln thought would lead to national suicide, our inability to see beyond the color of someone’s skin. It has been with us since our founding.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote that immortal second sentence of the Declaration that begins, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…,” he owned more than a hundred human beings. He never saw the contradiction, never saw the hypocrisy, and more important never saw fit in his lifetime to free any one of those human beings, ensuring as we went forward that the young United States — born with such glorious promise — would be bedeviled by race, that it would take a bloody, bloody Civil War to even begin to redress the imbalance.

But the shame continues: prison populations exploding with young black men, young black men killed almost weekly by policemen, whole communities of color burdened by corrupt municipalities that resemble more the predatory company store of a supposedly bygone era than a responsible local government. Our cities and towns and suburbs cannot become modern plantations.

It is unconscionable, as you emerge from this privileged sanctuary, that a few miles from here — and nearly everywhere else in America: Baltimore, New York City, North Charleston, Cleveland, Oklahoma, Sanford, Florida, nearly everywhere else — we are still playing out, sadly, an utterly American story, that the same stultifying conditions and sentiments that brought on our Civil War are still on such vivid and unpleasant display. Today, today. There’s nothing new under the sun.

Many years after our Civil War, in 1883, Mark Twain took up writing in earnest a novel he had started and abandoned several times over the last half-dozen years. It would be a very different kind of story from his celebrated Tom Sawyer book, told this time in the plain language of his Missouri boyhood — and it would be his masterpiece.

Set near here, before the Civil War and emancipation, ‘the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn’ is the story of two runaways — a white boy, Tom Sawyer’s old friend Huck, fleeing civilization, and a black man, Jim, who is running away from slavery. They escape together on a raft going down the Mississippi River.

The novel reaches its moral climax when Huck is faced with a terrible choice. He believes he has committed a grievous sin in helping Jim escape, and he finally writes out a letter, telling Jim’s owner where her runaway property can be found. Huck feels good about doing this at first, he says, and marvels at “how close I came to being lost and going to hell.”

But then he hesitates, thinking about how kind Jim has been to him during their adventure. “…Somehow,” Huck says, “I couldn’t seem to strike no place to harden me against him, but only the other kind. I’d see him standing my watch on top of his’n, ‘stead of calling me, so I could go on sleeping; and see how glad he was when I come back out of the fog;…and such like times; and would always call me honey…and do everything he could think of for me, and how good he always was…”

Then, Huck remembers the letter he has written. “I took it up, and held it in my hand,” he says. “I was a-trembling because I’d got to decide, forever, betwixt two things, and I knowed it. I studied a minute, sort of holding my breath, and then says to myself: ‘All right then, I’ll go to hell’ — and tore it up.”

That may be the finest moment in all of American literature. Ernest Hemingway thought all of American literature began at that moment.
Twain, himself, writing after the Civil War and after the collapse of Reconstruction, a misunderstood period devoted to trying to enforce civil rights, was actually expressing his profound disappointment that racial differences still persisted in America, that racism still festered in this favored land, founded as it was on the most noble principle yet advanced by humankind — that all men are created equal. That civil war had not cleansed our original sin, a sin we continue to confront today, daily, in this supposedly enlightened “post-racial” time.

It is into this disorienting and sometimes disappointing world that you now plummet, I’m afraid, unprotected from the shelter of family and school. You have fresh prospects and real dreams and I wish each and every one of you the very best. But I am drafting you now into a new Union Army that must be committed to preserving the values, the sense of humor, the sense of cohesion that have long been a part of our American nature, too. You have no choice, you’ve been called up, and it is your difficult, but great and challenging responsibility to help change things and set us right again.

Let me apologize in advance to you. We broke it, but you’ve got to fix it. You’re joining a movement that must be dedicated above all else — career and personal advancement — to the preservation of this country’s most enduring ideals. You have to learn, and then re-teach the rest of us that equality — real equality — is the hallmark and birthright of ALL Americans. Thankfully, you will become a vanguard against a new separatism that seems to have infected our ranks, a vanguard against those forces that, in the name of our great democracy, have managed to diminish it. Then, you can change human nature just a bit, to appeal, as Lincoln also implored us, to appeal to “the better angels of our nature.” That’s the objective. I know you can do it.

Ok. I’m rounding third.

Let me speak directly to the graduating class. (Watch out. Here comes the advice.)

Remember: Black lives matter. All lives matter.

Reject fundamentalism wherever it raises its ugly head. It’s not civilized. Choose to live in the Bedford Falls of “It’s a Wonderful Life,” not its oppressive opposite, Pottersville.

Do not descend too deeply into specialism. Educate all your parts. You will be healthier.

Replace cynicism with its old-fashioned antidote, skepticism.

Don’t confuse monetary success with excellence. The poet Robert Penn Warren once warned me that “careerism is death.”

Try not to make the other wrong.

Be curious, not cool.

Remember, insecurity makes liars of us all.

Listen to jazz. A lot. It is our music.

Read. The book is still the greatest manmade machine of all — not the car, not the TV, not the computer or the smartphone.

Do not allow our social media to segregate us into ever smaller tribes and clans, fiercely and sometimes appropriately loyal to our group, but also capable of metastasizing into profound distrust of the other.

Serve your country. By all means serve your country. But insist that we fight the right wars. Governments always forget that.

Convince your government that the real threat, as Lincoln knew, comes from within. Governments always forget that, too. Do not let your government outsource honesty, transparency or candor. Do not let your government outsource democracy.

Vote. Elect good leaders. When he was nominated in 1936, Franklin Delano Roosevelt said, “Better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference.” We all deserve the former. Insist on it.

Insist that we support science and the arts, especially the arts. They have nothing to do with the actual defense of the country — they just make the country worth defending.

Be about the “unum,” not the “pluribus.”

Do not lose your enthusiasm. In its Greek etymology, the word enthusiasm means simply, “God in us.”

And even though lightning still isn’t distributed right, try not to be a fool. It just gets Mark Twain riled up.

And if you ever find yourself in Huck’s spot, if you’ve “got to decide betwixt two things,” do the right thing. Don’t forget to tear up the letter. He didn’t go to hell — and you won’t either.

So we come to an end of something today—and for you also a very special beginning. God speed to you all.

Read more 2015 commencement speeches:

Alan Alda to Grads: Everything in Life Takes Time

Bill Nye to Grads: Change the World

Colin Powell to Grads: Learn to Lead

Eric Schmidt to Grads: You Can Write the Code for All of Us

Snapchat CEO Evan Spiegel to Grads: ‘This Is the World We Were Born Into, and We Are Responsible for It’

GE CEO Jeff Immelt to Grads: Become a Force for Change

Jorge Ramos’ Message for Journalists: Take a Stand

Katie Couric to Grads: Get Yourself Noticed

Kenneth Cole to Grads: Find Your Voice

Madeleine Albright to Grads: The World Needs You

Mark Ruffalo to Grads: Buck the System

Matthew McConaughey to Grads: Always Play Like an Underdog

Maya Rudolph to Grads: Create Your Own Destiny

Mellody Hobson to Grads: Set Your Sights High

Meredith Vieira to Grads: Be the Left Shark

Mitt Romney to Grads: America Needs You to Serve

Salman Rushdie to Grads: Try to Be Larger Than Life

Samantha Power to Grads: Start Changing the World By ‘Acting As If’

Stephen Colbert to Grads: You Are Your Own Professor Now

Tim Cook to Grads: Tune Out the Cynics

TIME Culture

We’ve Given in to Baby Worship. Ew.

Jennifer Moses is a writer and painter.

Children who are the center of their parents’ lives become brats

Recently, I noticed some unusual activity in the car one lane over from my own: The driver was taking an iPhone video of a toddler, presumably her own, as he demolished an ice cream bar while strapped into his car seat. Happily, this was happening at a red light. Unhappily, when the light changed, it continued to happen, or at least that’s what I deduced from the cacophony of honking protest.

I was on my way to the National Gallery in Washington, D.C., which I mention mainly because, while there, I spent a lot of time looking at various Madonna(s) and Child(ren)—Byzantine, Florentine, Renaissance, Medieval, enthroned, in gardens, and so forth. As a Jew, I never quite got the Baby Jesus thing, but that’s neither here nor there. What’s both here and there, however, is that Giotto and countless other believing Christians were on to something—the mystery at the heart of existence, the yearning to make both conscious and observable a palatable act of God. Hence we see baby Jesus depicted in art, the embodiment of innocence, possibility, purity, perfection, and wisdom beyond knowing.

Actual babies, however, embody nothing more than their parents’ genes and hopes and dreams. We love them to pieces. We love them so much that we have no words for how much we love them. Or at least I did, when my own three children were small. Especially when they weren’t whining, or fighting, or throwing giant loud temper tantrums that made the lighting fixtures dance. The rest of the time, I reminded myself that I loved them, that I’d chosen this, that I still had half a bottle of good Scotch in the cabinet above the oven.

And yes, when my eldest was born, I did think that I was the first woman in the world to experience the miracle and challenge of motherhood. But I didn’t actually worship him, by which I mean put him at the very center of my universe, bow down to him, enshrine him in glory, and cast him as the sine qua non of existence itself. It never occurred to me to do so; for starters, I was too sleep-deprived. And you can bet the farm that my mother, grandmothers, and great-grandmothers didn’t view their own roles as mothers as anything more—or less—than a job description, the goal being to turn childish children into responsible adults.

Whereas what seems to be happening now, at least among those endowed with both time and money, is something akin to the worship of our children. At the National Gallery, while I was touring the Holy Family galleries, young children, some still in diapers, ran around the marble floors screaming and yelling and spewing snot while the parents not only didn’t hush them up or whisk them away (or slap them silly, as I wanted to do), but instead often snapped endless photos and videos of them—which, no doubt, they posted on Facebook. Because God knows that your life isn’t really happening unless it’s captured in pixels and disseminated around the Internet. Art? Who needs it when you’ve got endless photos of Baby?

The problem with all this, aside from how silly it is, is that children who are the center of their parents’ lives become brats. Children whose parents put their kids’ entertainment, social lives, futures, and schedules ahead of their own well-being soon learn that there is only one important person in the room, and that person is the person whose short life has already been captured on endless video clips. This is not good. This is not good at all. Not for the kid. Not for the grownup. Not for the family dog.

To me, the video record of our children’s every moment dovetails with what I think of as “grade inflation”—grade inflation that not only skews the actual record of our children’s often dubious academic achievements, but also the rhetoric adults use to describe their children in general. So what happens is, on the one hand, a first-rate math teacher is fired because he dares to give C’s to C students. (This happened at my children’s private day school in Baton Rouge, where they grew up.) On the other hand, these same C-students manage to graduate from college, only to be told that, for example, they are joining “the elite of the elite in terms of standards of excellence,” (which I’m quoting as best I can from memory, having just attended the college graduations of my twins.) In the meantime, every precious moment of their precious and extraordinary lives are being recorded, emailed, Facebooked, Pinterested, Snapchatted, YouTubed, iTuned, and Twittered.

Gross.

And OK, yes, I agree: Not every young person, or new parent, indulges in such—shall we say laxity? Especially among people who inhabit the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum, where bad manners—disrespecting your elders in particular—doesn’t fly, in part because no one has either the time or the energy to indulge children’s worst inclinations, and in part because anti-social behavior on the lower rings of the socio-economic ladder tends to result in consequences more severe than a good talking-to. But a whole heck of a lot of people who should know better—people who are old enough to be adults—can’t seem to tell the difference between real life and make-believe.

Some contend that the concept of God—a Divinity beyond human reckoning—is itself make-believe, though I’m not one of them. But whether or not God is a member of your inner circle isn’t the point. The point is that a generation of children who believe that the world, and their parents, revolves around them is going to have an awful hard time growing up.

TIME Ideas hosts the world's leading voices, providing commentary and expertise on the most compelling events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. To submit a piece, email ideas@time.com.

TIME Religion

Egotism Is a Necessary Evil of Generous Donations

Rockefeller
Getty Images

Seeing your name on a wall offers satisfaction and a sprinkle of eternity

My father once traveled with a group of rabbis touring Israel. At each stop they saw plaques commemorating the philanthropists who had donated to help build the hospitals and other institutions. Some of the walls, festooned with accolades, resembled honeycombs whose ingenuity of design enabled them to accommodate ever more names. After a day of touring, the bus headed back to the hotel. Staring out at the darkening horizon, one of the rabbis said, “Look everyone, the Goldberg memorial sunset!”

Non-profit institutions constantly face the thorny issue of donor recognition. All they can offer a donor, apart from the intrinsic satisfaction of having done a good thing, or supported a worthy cause, is public acknowledgment. If the donation is substantial enough, you become eponymous, your name enduring as long as the institution—like the Rockefeller, or the Getty.

Yet even that munificent strategy has pitfalls: When my old high school was rededicated by the gift of a generous philanthropist in memory of his brother, some alumni were hurt that the old name, based on an ancient Jewish sage, was abandoned. I know of one relatively new university that deliberately chose an anodyne name so that no one would be attached to it. When a suitable donor is found, people will not object to the new designation.

Ralph Waldo Emerson put it frankly: “Take egotism out, and you would castrate the benefactors.” Seeing your name on a wall offers satisfaction and a sprinkle of eternity. Even in ancient synagogues, archeologists have found dedications incised on stone seats, indicating that the practice memorializing oneself is not new. Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair.

When it comes to donations of all kinds, purity and pragmatism make uneasy bedfellows. At a recent conference I attended on biotechnology and ethics, Steven Pinker from Harvard University excoriated the idea (attributed by an ethicist at the conference to philosopher Michael Sandel) that we should forbid people from donating organs for money because it impairs the altruism of the donor. “Would you want to be the one to tell a child’s parents that they cannot buy a lifesaving organ because of the dimming of the donor’s golden halo?” he asked.

I have similarly argued with those who don’t like that my synagogue is full of plaques. “Would you prefer the walls were clean and the halls empty?” To benefit from the generosity of others while begrudging them their own compensations is common enough, but anyone who is responsible for a church, museum, or university knows the attitude is profoundly unhelpful.

Sometimes people will give anonymous gifts, and I have known many who help quietly and wish for no acknowledgment. Does their reticence encourage others to contribute? Since competition is a spur to generosity (in parlor meetings the first gift often sparks others to give), anonymous support may even be counterproductive, dampening the enthusiasm of the competitive giver.

Ideals are often the mask worn by obstruction. If I need a kidney, I don’t care if the donor got money as long as he was not exploited or coerced. If I need to build an institution, I am happy to celebrate generosity that might encourage others and stand as a legacy to the donor’s family and the community. “Don’t be righteous overmuch,” Ecclesiastes advised us more than 2,000 years ago. Poet William Stafford put it best in a classic critique of overzealousness: “If you purify the pond, the water lilies die.”

TIME Ideas hosts the world's leading voices, providing commentary and expertise on the most compelling events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. To submit a piece, email ideas@time.com.

TIME Innovation

This Simple Procedure Can Give Amputees Bionic Limbs

The Aspen Institute is an educational and policy studies organization based in Washington, D.C.

These are today's best ideas

1. With a simple procedure, amputees can have brain-controlled bionic limbs.

By Eric Sofge in Popular Science

2. Is Starbucks helping to rebuild America’s middle class?

By Amanda Ripley in the Atlantic

3. Now a satellite can tell you when a bridge is about to fail.

By the European Space Agency

4. We can get cheaper wind power from bladeless, vibrating turbines.

By Liz Stinson in Wired

5. Can learning machines predict the next pandemic?

By David Schultz in Science

The Aspen Institute is an educational and policy studies organization based in Washington, D.C.

TIME Ideas hosts the world's leading voices, providing commentary and expertise on the most compelling events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. To submit a piece, email ideas@time.com.

Your browser is out of date. Please update your browser at http://update.microsoft.com