Photo: Phil Homer being interviewed by Michael David, 29 October 2016, on the high school football field named after him.
700 words / 3 1/2 minute read
We were on the cusp of the 1970s, a decade that would see me through high school, university and into a career in business. But that day in my high school English class, our teacher set out to show us how to write an essay. He asked the class for suggestions of a controversy that he could discuss and develop so we would see how to present our arguments.
There were controversies aplenty in those days. It was at the height of the war in Vietnam. Older friends and siblings were enlisting or being drafted. The country was roiling against the war which many saw as the unnecessary slaughter of America’s own young men, not to mention the unnecessary slaughter of people half a world away. It was the height of the Civil Rights Movement when what didn’t tear America apart by the war was tearing it apart between her own citizens, many of whom were separate – and far from equal. It was rich pickings for a teacher looking for a controversy to show how to develop an argument and an opportunity for a discussion in which no doubt the students were brimming with views.
Did anyone suggest these topics? Mr Phil Homer had his own idea. This is what he chose: Should the school put lights on the football field so practices and games could be played at night? He then went on to show us the introduction, the thesis, and how to develop the arguments. I was so outraged by the banality of the “controversy” that I never forgot it and in my heart never forgave Mr Homer for the triteness of his choice.
Sometimes it takes 50-odd years for lessons to be learned. I did follow Mr Homer’s guidelines when writing essays and wrote a few for my university degree in English literature. I am grateful to him for that. Whether students now are learning to write – or even to read – is a question for another time. But it seems students from schools to universities are becoming embroiled in some of the more intractable controversies of our times. They have the information that reinforces their world views; the idea of presenting their arguments and having a discussion is not part of the mix.
Education is meant to teach people to think, to take information and evaluate it, to come to their own thesis, to be able to come to their own conclusions. My sense is that all that has been bypassed by the rivers of expediency. Whoever can make the most noise, have the simplest slogans, the most followers – they are the educators of today. They have been allowed to take over the classroom. What is taught is not the method of investigation but the message du jour.
Mr Homer believed in educating his students how to think, how to present their ideas, not what their ideas should be. He used what seemed to me a banal example but he succeeded in educating us.
I am not equating the controversies of my youth with those of today. But I do wonder where intellectual discourse has gone, where the atmosphere where different sides can be presented and discussed rationally has gone, where young minds are open to learning other perspectives and absorbing information that may be new to them. Where has that gone?
Martin believed in what he called “true history” which he uncovered from the documents that influenced the events. He tried to strike a balanced line and more often than not was criticised by both sides. He believed that if his readers had the information they could make up their own minds and be in a better position to evaluate the messages du jour.
And Mr Homer? He got his lights on – and his name on the football field. And a former old student who finally recognised that what counts is the ability to present and even hold different views. In no other current controversy is this more important than regarding Israel and her neighbours. Let Sir Martin be your guide.
