Griffin, a Diagnosis, and the Gift of New Eyes

When I tell people about our youngest son’s Down syndrome diagnosis, many people say, “I’m sorry.”

They don’t know what else to say.

But there’s no need to be sorry. He’s alive and well, we love him, and we’re glad he’s here.

And yet, I still understand and appreciate it when someone says, “I’m sorry.” Because even if they have never had a child with Down syndrome—or any other kind of condition that leads to developmental delays—they have some intuition that it’s going to be hard.

We all do, because we have lived in this world.

We all intuitively know that the world is not built for people like Griffin. We know it’s hard to always see doctors, and that some people will treat him badly. His life—and ours—won’t follow the “normal,” well-trodden path and that will, at times, be very hard.

The past eight months have already given me a preview of this tension: between who Griffin is and how the world is built.

Griffin is normal—just somewhere else on the wide bell curve of what life looks like. He was conceived and born as any other child. We made no alterations to him—he’s here as God made him.

Yes, he has a diagnosis. But that doesn’t mean he’s broken. He isn’t defective—he’s simply different. Just like kids with cystic fibrosis, dyslexia, deafness, or any other “diagnosis”—these kids were simply born this way. That is normal, even if different.

And this goes beyond medical diagnoses. Some kids are taller or shorter. Some are gay or straight. Some are different levels of athletic, artistic, or scholarly. All kids are different, on a boundless amount of dimensions.

All of these kids—and all of us as adults—fall into the category of “we were born this way” in one dimension or another. Made by God this way, by no choice of our own.

So there are people just born a certain way, and yet, we also intrinsically know that those same people will have to go through inevitable hardship because of how they were born interacts with the world we live in.

But it’s not all struggle. Robyn often reminds me that some things may actually come easier for Griffin—like kindness, joy, and forgiveness. He has this lightness of being I can’t explain, but I see vividly.

Still, some of the hardship just doesn’t seem right—for Griffin or for anyone else who was “born this way.” Especially the hardship rooted in having their needs overlooked or unconsidered.

Those needs show up everywhere—from schools and playgrounds to healthcare, websites, public parks, airports, road signs, and even neighborhood newsletters. These choices shape whose lives get to flourish.

Because on a planet with over 7 billion people and in a country of over 300 million, there will inevitably be so many differences and spectrums.

Every day, in small and big ways, we make consequential choices about who’s in and who’s left out.

Whose needs are considered and whose aren’t? Do we only build for people like us, or do we stretch to include those we don’t yet understand?

Of course, our lives and our world have trade-offs. There isn’t unlimited time or money. But there are a lot of smart people who care, who have time and a willingness to innovate to break trade-offs. And in many cases, there’s money we’re already spending that could be spent differently. We just have to see with different eyes.

Playgrounds are a good example of this, and something I see with new eyes now. There are ways to make playgrounds so that many different types of kids can play together. You just have to make different and creative choices about materials, structures, and things like seats on swings.

I see so much more clearly now—even if in a very small way—the ways in which people born “normally,” but differently in a particular kind of way, are overlooked because they are easy to ignore, or are less “squeaky” than I am.

And it doesn’t sit right with me. But I do get it. The more people we include, the more complex our decisions are. We have to be smarter and more creative to make a website that everybody can use well enough, compared to just what the majority can use.

But that still doesn’t sit right. I am not God, after all. Why do I get to decide who’s worthy, important, or loud enough to be included? I may not be able to break every trade-off and create some sort of prosperous utopia that works brilliantly and cheaply for everyone. But it doesn’t seem right to me to not even try—before overlooking, whether deliberately or simply because I’ve allowed myself to remain ignorant—the needs of someone in need. Which, aren’t we all, in some way or another?

Griffin’s Down syndrome diagnosis has given me the eyes to see this profound choice—who’s in, who’s out—more clearly. And more importantly, it gave me the eyes to see that I was more ignorant of my own ignorance than I thought I was.

But in addition to a realization about justice, Griffin has also helped me realize something about joy.

I can’t explain it, but Griffin has joy. And his joy honestly feels different. I don’t know why—whether it has to do with Down syndrome, or if I’m blinded by the fact that he’s our last child, or what. But his joy is different in a very special way.

Which is to say, the world would lose something extraordinary if he had never been born—or if his gifts were overlooked and never nurtured.

And not just Griffin. Every child—born “different” or not—has something extraordinary within them. Every adult too. When we overlook entire groups of people, we rob the world of that brilliance.

So, in addition to not being able to accept the injustice of deciding who’s in and who’s out, who am I to rob the world of these extraordinary things? The comfort of my own ignorance is certainly not more valuable than that.

Being Griffin’s father has already humbled me. Seeing the world through his eyes has taught me that I have a long way to grow in two important ways.

First, I ought to stretch whose needs I consider as widely as possible.

Second, I should assume I don’t understand other people’s needs and gifts as well as I think I do.

So instead of “I’m sorry,” after someone shares a tough reality, maybe it’s better to say:

“I honestly don’t understand what you’re going through. How are you all doing?”

Maybe that will open my heart even wider to understand, love, and include them.

Expanding Identity: Lessons from ‘Master of Change’

“Don’t put all your eggs in one basket.”

This age-old adage, typically associated with financial investments, resonates deeply with me. It goes beyond diversifying assets to mitigate risk; it serves as a powerful metaphor for spreading our emotional and psychological investments across various aspects of life. This approach to diversifying how we define and perceive our identities can safeguard us against life's unpredictability.

After reading Brad Stulberg's Master of Change, the concept of not putting all your eggs in one basket took on a new, personal dimension. Stulberg explores rugged flexibility, a resilience against life's changes. His application of this proverb to the realm of identity struck me the most. He argues that by diversifying the sources of our self-worth, we can develop psychological resilience. This perspective, introduced by Stulberg, offered a fresh lens to view my own multifaceted identity.

Eager to put this concept into practice, I embarked on a personal journey of reflection. I often get flustered when life's balance tilts, feeling overwhelmed when things don't go smoothly. Recognizing this pattern, I saw the value in proactively applying Stulberg's idea. I aimed to equip myself better for those inevitable challenging times. Could redefining my identity in broader terms help me stay centered? This introspection aimed to mute my inner critic's harsh criticisms, labeling me an 'underachieving loser' (my inner critic's words, not mine), before they surfaced during the next downturn.

Here's what I discovered, a surprisingly revealing and affirming list. It was a profoundly good use of 30 minutes, one that I heartily recommend. Below is a snapshot of my notebook, showcasing these 101 facets of my identity. Entries like 'I am a pancake chef' and 'I am a coreographer' represent unique strands in my identity's complex tapestry, extending beyond just my professional life and familial roles. This visual representation of my diverse self-identity serves as a personal reminder of my multifaceted nature and as a direct invitation to you, the reader, to embark on a similar journey of self-discovery. It's a revealing and enriching experience.

Looking back on this exercise, I had one more takeaway that I’ve been chewing on.

I’m a pretty regular guy. I’m not that much more interesting or worldly than anyone else. And I was able to look inward and define my identity in 101 ways without too much trouble. If I’m not that different than the next guy, that means everyone is this multi-dimensional. Everyone has more to them than meets the eye. Everyone has a sophisticated, interesting, and unique inner world.

Which makes me think of how reducing so many institutions can be.

Reflecting on my career, I realize that most companies I've worked for have only acknowledged a fraction of my dimensions. In public politics, individuals often get pigeonholed into categories represented by organized interest groups, overshadowing their identity complexity. And I’ll admit it, when I see people in public I have a hard time remembering that there’s more to someone than some of the obvious visible identifiers - like the sports team on their hat, their fashion sense, or their likely age. These reflections opened my eyes to the frequency with which we're condensed to just a sliver of who we truly are, whether in professional settings or broader societal contexts.

The exercise sparked a pivotal change in my thinking: I now want to proactively assume the complexity and nuance in every person. I now know, in very tactical terms, how to look beyond surface impressions and appreciate that everyone has a complex identity. By choosing not to unintentionally oversimplify others, I seek to creating a space where the person in front of me can bring their full self to the world.

Imagine how different the world might be if everyone contributed the totality of who they were. It’d be something.

—

My new book, Character by Choice: Letters on Goodness, Courage, and Becoming Better on Purpose, is now out in pre-launch! I’m so excited to share it and proud of how it turned out. If you liked this post, you might find it a good read. You can learn more about the book here.

When men dream bigger

As a man in America, I feel like I operate in a bit of a no-man’s land between the cultures of men and women.

On the one hand, there’s the culture of men. It’s the culture of ambition, being the king of the hill, and dominating others. It’s the culture predicated on the notion of “might makes right.” Some people call it patriarchy, some call it locker room culture, some call it toxic masculinity. 

I don’t really care to call it anything, I just know that I am alienated by it. I’m not particularly “macho”. I tried to fake it for awhile when I was younger, but as time passed I’ve realized that I don’t want to partake in that particular culture that groups of men tend to devolve into. Even though I often feel like I have to fit that mold of a man to be respected and rewarded for my efforts, especially in professional settings, I don’t want to be like “one of the guys.”

At the same time, the community of women is not a haven for me either - I don’t fit in there, even though it’s fairly inclusive and I’d like to. 

But even though I feel solidarity with thinkers and organizations like Brene Brown, Melinda Gates, the US Women’s National Team, Mary Barra, Michele Obama, and Reese Witherspoon’s Book club - and if I’m being honest, look to them as role models - I just never feel quite like I can belong there, even if the issue is my own mindset. For example, if I participate in something that’s by-women, for women (like a Women’s Leadership Development group event at work) I personally feel like I must participate as an advocate / ally, rather than as a beneficiary - even though I feel alienated by the patriarchy and limited by the glass ceiling, too. Even if it’s in my own head, I just can’t be part of that tribe.

Between those two spaces is where I feel like I operate - I don’t want to be part of the dominant men’s culture, but don’t feel like I belong in cultures by women, and for women, either. That place of invisibility is my no-man’s land. I don’t have any empirical evidence of this yet, but my intuition is that a growing number of us men feel like we are in this invisible, voiceless, no-man’s land too. That bothers me.

—

I can think of two ways to make this no-man’s land into a place that feels more like home.

The first path I can think of is diversity. I’ve noticed that when I’m among a diverse group of men (in any and every sense of the word) the dominant male culture feels tempered. It’s like the pressure to compete is off if the dudes around you aren’t even trying to fill the same niche you are. 

I think my closest high-school guy-friends are a good example of this dynamic. We run the gamut of professions, life experiences, politics, religiosity and interests. Between us we have: a corporate drone (me), a bar manager, a federal public servant, a software developer, a quant, a show-businesses tech, and a priest. We cover three different races, most of the political spectrum, and live in four different states now. 

When we’re together, I feel almost none of that dominant male culture. We have no reason do anything but celebrate and support each other because we’re not trying to be the king of the same hill.

The other path out of this no-man’s land (that I can think of, at least) is dreaming bigger. 

I was lucky to get to know one of the OGs of Detroit - I’ll call him Mr. B here, when I was working for the Detroit Police Department. He was one of our close community partners, and he would often speak at community events associated with the gang violence prevention program I worked on. He had endless energy, motivation, and wisdom. One of his ideas that I’ll never forget is that, “it’s a dangerous thing when a man stops dreaming.” I’ve reflected on this idea for years now.

If we, as men, dreamed bigger and more generously I feel like we might be able to create a different culture for ourselves. Because when you are dreaming of bigger things that raise up ourselves, our communities, and our world - we realize that the same-old hill we’ve been trying to become a king of, is small-minded. When we set our sights on a compelling vision that’s generous, virtuous, and benefits others we have a reason to stop thinking about one-upping other people and trying to get to the top of that same imaginary, one-dimensional hill. The dream expands our horizons and gives us the chance to transcend our our personal egos. 

When we, as men, dream bigger, we have better things to do than be assholes that behave aggressively and try to dominate others - because any time that’s not spent on reaching that big, difficult dream is wasted. It’s just a whole different dynamic when we’re dreaming big (assuming that dream is not selfish or ego-driven) because instead of fighting over the same hill, we realize that the world is a big place, there are hills for all of us, and that we can help each other on the climb.

For me at least, the challenge of a big dream gives me a reason to break the boundaries and chains of the culture I’m in and an implied permission to create a new culture. Which is why I think (and hope) it’s a path out of this no-man’s land.

I feel this tension and alienation from the dominant male culture damn near every day of my life. It’s grueling and exhausting. Some days I want to just give up and let myself fade into that dominant male culture. But I just can’t. We just can’t. We will get out of this no-man’s land if we stick with it.