A couple of things happened this week that are worth considering. I finished James Comey’s book A Higher Loyalty and finished grading my students’ project to redesign our currency—I mentioned it in a previous essay. In a weird way, these two things are related.
A selection of my students’ work is featured throughout this piece, with their permission.
I started reading Comey’s book after watching the Netflix show Comey Rule. But perhaps I should explain why this book made an impact on me. Words, arguments (not in the sense of fighting but preparing a compelling point), and rhetoric are very attractive to me. The better we can express our points, the better our eloquence, charisma, and credibility. Comey’s book does not disappoint in that sense. The writing is superb. At times, it drags, but it is generally a very well-written memoir of his time as the FBI director and how he got there. Comey worked under three Presidents: George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump. Three different leaders with a common denominator: James Comey.
Bashing these three leaders and expanding on their weaknesses would have been easy. Comey’s measured and cautious observations of them reveal quite a bit about his integrity. Especially when he refers to Obama. Comey was a Republican appointed by George W. Bush, another Republican, as an Attorney General. Obama, a Democrat, appointed him as the FBI Director. Comey’s descriptions of Obama as a person and leader are remarkable. There is a formidable sense of respect and admiration, considering they represented different political interests. That is why I stuck with the book. If someone from an opposite party can see and speak highly of an opponent’s character (assuming there is a good character to praise), that person can reason beyond their biases. Yes, it is true that Comey was not running against Obama. Still, not many can speak about, let alone write about, the honorability of an opponent.
Civil discourse is something that we have lost in this country. I grew up in the time when a handshake was as good as any written document to seal a deal. And when your word was everything. Differences of opinion were handled with grace, for the most part. Sometimes, there were unusual and out-of-hand situations, but the norm was civility. Somehow, while growing up in Puerto Rico, that changed. Tempers flared, and voices were raised. So much so that when I came to the US, I never talked about politics with anyone. When I met my husband’s parents, I was shocked by how much they talked about politics. It took me a long time to get used to it.
There is a recollection in Comey’s book I found particularly remarkable when it came to Obama. In the chapter titled “The Washington Listen,” Comey recounts his speech in Chicago regarding the relationship between law enforcement and the African American community. Two days after the speech, Obama requested to meet with him. Inadvertently, Comey had added controversy to the controversy—to put it mildly. My read on the narrative was that Comey, like many Caucasians, was not able to fine-tune his read and feelings about the state of affairs between the police and the African American community. In Comey’s words, he “was trapped in his own perspective.” Thus, he came across differently than he might’ve wished. As an FBI director, what he said carried weight—in the context of having an African American president, the weight of how and what Comey said weighed even more. How Comey describes the conversation between himself and Obama was remarkable to me. Obama expressed he called him “to understand what you are seeing and thinking.” After carefully listening to Comey, Obama explained how the African American community perceives some of the terms and words Comey used. He credited Obama for helping him see beyond his perspective. More importantly, he remarked about Obama: “President Obama would never have considered such a conversation if he did not have enough confidence in himself to show humility.”
What made the civil discourse between Comey and Obama possible? Empathy, humility, willingness to listen, and freedom to disagree. It sounds so easy. Yet, it is so difficult. Even in the media, there is little reporting. There is, however, editorializing—words sprinkled here and there to sway opinions and kindle disgust. Both camps are guilty: the left and the right.
Now, what does this have to do with my students’ project of redesigning the dollar bills1? Quite a bit. One of my most important goals is for my students to feel free to disagree while protecting civility. We must engage in conversations to nurture and articulate ideas that inevitably will become personal as they engage in the process of designing them. I want my students to protect each other’s space so that they can speak their views. And yes, I disagree with a good number of them sometimes. Occasionally, I have had to apologize for a word or a comment out of turn. I do not mind doing that because I am focused on a bigger goal: mutual respect, civility, and trust. More importantly, if I am willing to be vulnerable, it is very likely that my students will follow suit with their work.
When we started our project, the conversation was profound. We spoke about the nation’s politics, economy, and international practices. We discussed everything we could think regarding the United States as a nation of power. That included the good and the bad for Caucasians, Asians, African Americans, and Latinos in the class. This discussion brought many ideas and thoughts about what to highlight about the country. One design featured a plastic see-through window so everyone could see themselves in the currency when the bill was held up (see the banner picture designed by Jonathan Taylor). Others highlighted women such as Sybil Ludington, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Barbara Jordan, the first Southern African American congresswoman, and other topics important to them: marine life, national parks, the Wright brothers, and Native Americans, for instance. Their projects were so good that when I was grading them, I was filled with emotion at how much improvement they had made. This brings me back to why Comey’s book resonated with me. It is not only about people but also about how we all contribute to the larger picture: a place where diverse points of view enrich, polish, and shape each other while keeping our core values. Maybe I am idealistic. Probably so. But I hold on to it because it is worth having a class where everyone puts forth their best work based on a simple premise: it matters and makes a difference.
Alma Hoffmann is a freelance designer, design educator, author of Sketching as Design Thinking, and editor at Smashing Magazine. This is a slightly edited version of an essay originally posted on Temperamental amusing shenanigans, Alma’s Substack dedicated to design, life, and everything in between.
Banner mage courtesy author, work designed by Jonathan Taylor.
- Project is originally found on AIGA Design Teaching Resources ↩︎