Mel Brooks, the Chinese Gourmet Society, and the stoking of creativity and mutual support

One of my favorite parts of filmmaker and comedian Mel Brooks’s breezy, funny memoir, All About Me! My Remarkable Life in Show Business (2021), is a short chapter devoted to what he and his pals called the “Chinese Gourmet Society.”

For some nine years starting in the early 1950s (apparently — he gives no dates!), Brooks and a group of invited friends met for dinner every Tuesday night in New York’s Chinatown. While membership varied over the years, the group included:

• Irving “Speed” Vogel, one of Brooks’s long-time friends and a textile factory manager turned direct metal sculptor;
• Ngoot Lee, a friend of Vogel who worked for Bloomingdale’s as a calligrapher and furniture designer and knew of the best restaurants in Chinatown;
• Authors Georgie Mandel (The Wax Boom), Joseph Heller (Catch 22), and Mario Puzo (The Godfather) — all before they made it big; and,
• Julie Green, an “incredibly well read” diamond merchant.

Brooks doesn’t go into detail about what they talked about during those dinners, but he credits his friends and these dinners for providing “stability and inspiration” and getting him through some lean and difficult years. Indeed, as Brooks writes, the group had some dining rules that reflected their tight budgets and a commitment to this fellowship:

We had strict eating rules at the Chinese Gourmet Society. You were not allowed to eat two mouthfuls of fish, meat, or chicken without an intermediate mouthful of rice. Otherwise, you would be consuming only the expensive food. The check and tip, and the parking fees, if any, were equally divided among the members. It was compulsory, if you were in New York, not working nights, and in reasonable health, to be present at every Chinese Gourmet Society meeting.

We can only imagine what it must’ve been like to share a weekly dinner with this eclectic, talented crew, before many of them became prominent and very successful. How did their various conversations generate creative artistic and business ideas? How did they support each other when money was tight, success was far from assured, and assorted life challenges presented themselves? I’m quite sure that those dinners, in addition to providing an enjoyable social outlet, stoked both artistic genius and mutual support.

***

I have long been fascinated by, and sometimes envious of, these small, informal, intentional cohorts of interesting, smart, creative people who meet regularly over meals in a spirit of fellowship. I even have a small collection of books built around other examples of these groups, including, among others:

• Laura J. Snyder’s The Philosophical Breakfast Club (2011) shares how four men who first crossed paths at Cambridge University — Charles Babbage (mathematics and computing), John Herschel (astronomy and photography), William Whewell (multiple fields of science), and Richard Jones (economic science) — began meeting over Sunday morning breakfast during the 1800s to exchange ideas and plant the seeds of the modernization of science.
• Louis Menand’s The Metaphysical Club: A Story of Ideas in America (2001) focuses on the lives and ideas of four remarkable members of a conversational club that met throughout 1872: Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (law), Charles Sanders Pierce (philosophy), William James (philosophy and psychology), and John Dewey (education and philosophy).
• Philip Zaleski & Carol Zeleski’s The Fellowship: The Literary Lives of the Inklings (2015) tells the story of how writers C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien and other intellectuals formed a literary club, the Inklings, that met weekly in various pubs and other locations around Oxford University during the 1950s, “to drink, smoke, quip, cavil, read aloud their works in progress, and endure or enjoy with as much grace as they could muster the sometimes blistering critiques that followed.”

While these groups offer their own fascinating stories, one of the great appeals of Mel Brooks’s Chinese Gourmet Society is its comparatively motley membership, untethered to a prominent university. Their work and creative aspirations were more commercial in nature, while having the power to shape our popular culture. I’m also betting that the more disparate occupations of the Chinese Gourmet Society members made for greater varieties of conversations and sharing of information and ideas.

(I readily acknowledge that these groups I’ve talked about above are noticeably lacking in gender and racial diversity. It is very likely that many similar stories remain to be told, or have been told and I am simply unaware of them.)

***

The formation of these groups and larger tribes cannot be forced or contrived; any genuine sense of fellowship has to be somewhat organic in its formation, bringing together the right mix of personalities, intellects, dispositions, and interests. Food and drink help as well!

Although I have never been part of any ongoing group like the Chinese Gourmet Society, the Philosophical Breakfast Club, the Metaphysical Club, or the Inklings, I have experienced these fellowship experiences on a short-term, in-person basis, typically through the work I’m doing on workplace bullying and employment relations generally, human dignity, and therapeutic jurisprudence. Here are several pertinent blog posts:

• “Conferences as community builders” (2015) (link here) — About the biennial Work, Stress and Health conference co-sponsored by the American Psychological Association, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and Society for Occupational Health Psychology;
• “Tribes for brewing ideas and engaging in positive change” (2015; rev. 2019) (link here) — A piece contemplating how to nurture tribes to engage in collaborative change;
• “Launched in Prague: The International Society for Therapeutic Jurisprudence” (2017) (link here) — How we launched an international learned society devoted to advancing therapeutic jurisprudence at the International Congress on Law and Mental Health, in Prague, Czech Republic.
• “A workshop as annual ritual” (2019) (link here) — A look at the annual December workshop of Human Dignity and Humiliation Studies, held in New York City.
• “A veteran cohort of the workplace anti-bullying movement gathers in Boston” (2023) (link here) — Practitioners and scholars addressing workplace bullying, many of whom are associated with the Workplace Bullying Institute, gathered for an interactive workshop in Boston last year.

***

I think it remains to be determined if Zoom and other communications platforms can be the central enablers for fostering such fellowship opportunities. My basic hypothesis is that Zoom, et al., can serve as a valuable connector between in-person gatherings, but that periodic face-to-face exchanges are a necessary component for sustaining successful cohorts of this nature.

Of gaslighting, DARVO, and flying monkeys: What fuels the emotion-laden descriptions of workplace bullying and mobbing?

(Flying monkey image courtesy of Clker.com)

Workplace bullying and mobbing. Yes, generically speaking, it’s about the experience and conditions of work. But at a human level, it’s often about apprehension, fear, and even terror. And for someone experiencing full-on work abuse or recovering from it, it’s very likely driven by the dynamics of psychological trauma.

A new lexicon

Andrea Adams, the British journalist who popularized the term workplace bullying during in the late 1980s, knew well about how terrifying, cruel, and malicious this form of abuse could be. In a 1994 speech before a British trade union (link here), she observed that, in the course of her investigations:

…people have described this experience as everything from psychological terrorisation, to emotional rape, to entering a war zone. Their accounts are all so similar that l can now predict when somebody contacts me, what they are actually going to say and the way in which they identify bullying, and their physical and emotional responses to it.

Adams’s journalistic explorations would be echoed by academic research. I frequently invoke an important study by communications professors Sarah Tracy, Pamela Lutgen-Sandvik, and Jess Alberts, “Nightmares, Demons, and Slaves: Exploring the Painful Metaphors of Workplace Bullying,” Management Communication Quarterly (2006) (link here), which found that bullying targets’ narratives of their experiences “were saturated with metaphors of beating, physical abuse, and death.”

Once a targeted individual learns about workplace bullying and mobbing and certain terms used to describe its variations, a familiar vocabulary may come into play: These terms are often woven into narratives that describe their experiences in very emotional terms. They include, among others:

Gaslighting — In The Gaslight Effect: How to Spot and Survive the Hidden Manipulation Others Use to Control Your Life, (2018 rev. ed.), Dr. Robin Stern defines gaslighting as:

a type of emotional manipulation in which a gaslighter tries to convince you that you’re misremembering, misunderstanding, or misinterpreting your own behavior or motivations, thus creating doubt in your mind that leaves you vulnerable and confused. Gaslighters might be men or women, spouses or lovers, bosses or colleagues, parents or siblings, but what they all have in common is their ability to make you question your own perceptions of reality.

I have written frequently here about gaslighting, including its use as a work abuse tactic (e.g., links here and here).

DARVO — As explained by Dr. Jennifer Freyd (President, Center for Institutional Courage; U. Oregon, emerit):

DARVO stands for “Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender.” The perpetrator or offender may Deny the behavior, Attack the individual doing the confronting, and Reverse the roles of Victim and Offender such that the perpetrator assumes the victim role and turns the true victim — or the whistle blower — into an alleged offender. This occurs, for instance, when an actually guilty perpetrator assumes the role of “falsely accused” and attacks the accuser’s credibility and blames the accuser of being the perpetrator of a false accusation.

I have written about DARVO in connection with aggressors claiming victim status in workplace bullying situations (link here).

Flying monkeys — As explained for PsychCentral by Christine Hammond (link here):

When the narcissist wants to evoke some punishment on a target they dispatch their henchmen (aka flying monkeys) to do their bidding. Unfortunately, this can and often does include abusive behavior such as guilt-tripping, twisting the truth, gaslighting, assaults, threats, and violence.

She further details the roots of the term:

The term was coined from the movie The Wizard of Oz in which the Wicked Witch dispatches monkeys to fly and get Dorothy and her dog. The monkeys obey her command, doing her dirty work for her, taunting and terrorizing Dorothy as she tries in vain to get back home. And so it is with narcissists and their flying monkeys.

Thus, we are most likely to hear references to flying monkeys in the workplace bullying and mobbing context when a boss directs their minions to harass and abuse a designated target. I have dubbed this behavior “puppet master bullying” (link here), but the choice of terminology is less significant than understanding the underlying behavior itself.

The neuroscience of bullying and mobbing at work

Why do so many targets of severe, continuous bullying and mobbing at work invoke emotional terms and descriptions in characterizing their experiences, rather than provide ordered narratives of their stories? For insight, I once again turn to Dr. Bessel van der Kolk‘s indispensable The Body Keeps the Score: Brain, Mind, and Body in the Healing of Trauma (2014).

Dr. van der Kolk summons neuroscience research on brain functioning to explain what happens to some people when experiencing or reliving a traumatic event. In essence, the side of the brain associated with emotions, intuition, creativity, and imagination — the so-called right side — becomes fully activated. During brain scans when individuals are asked to recount traumatic events, it lights up like the proverbial Christmas tree. By contrast, the side of the brain associated with logic, raw facts, linear thinking, and sequencing — the s0-called left side — shuts down. During these brain scans, it goes dark.

With this in mind, it is utterly understandable why targets of bullying and mobbing at work often describe their experiences in emotion-laden terms. Many will experience difficulty reducing these experiences to the kinds of sequential narratives that HR personnel, union shop stewards, or employment lawyers typically seek in trying to grasp what happened and whether an individual can provide facts to support their claims. This can further undermine a target’s credibility and make them appear unstable and unreliable, when in reality it is often the trauma talking.

Chip Conley on embracing midlife

I’m not quite sure when I started to use the term midlife in association with, well, my own life, but I think it was during my late 40s. At the time, it did make me feel older to concede that I had entered this stage. Now, however, having entered the heart of my 60s, I’m wondering how much longer I can claim to be in this relatively youthful category.

Well, my concerns are now somewhat assuaged by entrepreneur and author Chip Conley, who suggests that midlife is a multi-stage journey that “may last from 35 to 75.” This broader chronological framing of midlife is just one interesting piece of his new book, Learning to Love Midlife: 12 Reasons Why Life Gets Better With Age (Little, Brown Spark, 2024). I recommend it heartily, though with a quibble or two.

Conley pulls together a lot of aspects about how we address aging, starting with a look at life expectancy figures and suggesting that at 50 years old, someone could literally be at their midlife point. He encourages us to look at this as a time of growth, purpose, and fulfillment rather than as one marked by steady decline. This includes becoming comfortable in our own skin, redefining our relationship with work, letting go of unhealthy emotional baggage and ties, seeking out meaningful associations and activities, and basically becoming our best selves.

The book mixes the author’s personal anecdotes, summaries of research on aging and lifespan development (he’s done his homework), and a wide variety of other voices. On the latter, if authors such as Brené Brown, Joseph Campbell, Arthur C. Brooks, and Viktor Frankl sound familiar, then you’ll be in comfortable territory. Overall, it’s an easy and thought provoking read.

My quibbles pertain mainly to this genre of writing generally. While Conley has faced his share of personal challenges, he and others who write about life stages and aging from a personal development perspective tend to have financial resources and strong networks. There is, frankly, an upper middle class lean to these introspective looks at life, which makes books such as this more useful to those who have some degree of personal control over their choices and financial flexibility.

That said, Conley isn’t limiting his messaging to those with lots of time and money. His Modern Elder Academy, for example, is offering an online course that includes a copy of Learning to Love Midlife for $49 (link here). 

***

By the way, if you’re looking for a more intellectual take on evaluating your life, then I’m happy to recommend the second edition of Leading Lives That Matter: What We Should Do and Who We Should Be (Eerdmans, 2020), edited by Mark R. Schwehn and Dorothy C. Bass of Valparaiso University, where I earned my bachelor’s degree many years ago. It’s an anthology of excerpted texts drawn from literature, public affairs, and philosophy, built around the theme captured by the title. Although written with undergraduate humanities seminars in mind, it’s a great volume for adults engaging in midlife contemplations consistent with Chip Conley’s book above.

Feeding our dialogue about workplace bullying

Hello dear readers, I’ve collect some of my recent contributions to the dialogue about workplace bullying and related topics. I’m including several that I wrote about in earlier posts in case you missed them.

Article excerpted in popular law school casebook

I’m happy to share that my first law review article about workplace bullying and U.S. employment law, “The Phenomenon of ‘Workplace Bullying’ and the Need for Status-Blind Hostile Work Environment Protection” (Georgetown Law Journal, 2000), has been excerpted in the new edition of a leading employment law casebook used in law schools, Mark Rothstein, Lance Liebman, Kimberly A. Yuracko, Charlotte Garden & Susan E. Cancelosi, Employment Law, Cases and Materials (10th ed., 2024).

In U.S. law school courses covering specific areas of law, casebooks usually comprise the main reading assignments. A typical casebook is a mix of edited judicial decisions, statutes, and regulations, often framed by the editors’ own commentaries and excerpts from legal treatises and law review articles.

This excerpt (see photo above) is part of a modest milestone of sorts. You see, the Rothstein casebook is, by my estimation, the first to include a standalone subsection on workplace bullying. Whereas major U.S. textbooks in fields such as organizational psychology and organizational behavior have included coverage of workplace bullying for some time, those in the legal field have lagged behind — in part because of the resistance of American legal jurisdictions to enact express protections against workplace bullying.

This means that law students assigned the Rothstein casebook will likely be introduced to the topic of workplace bullying, even as advocacy efforts to enact the workplace anti-bullying laws such as the Healthy Workplace Bill continue.

Although the Rothstein casebook is not freely accessible online, you may download a pdf of my 2000 Georgetown Law Journal article without charge here.

Call for amending OSH Act to include risks of serious psychological harm at work

Last fall, my essay “Expanding Coverage of the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Act to Protect Workers from Severe Psychological Harm” (freely downloadable pdf here) was published in the Suffolk University Law Review.  I used the opportunity to propose that we have a serious conversation about expanding the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) to cover workers from workplace hazards that are causing or likely to cause serious psychological harm. Here’s the abstract:

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) was designed to safeguard workers from hazardous working conditions that can cause serious physical harm and death. Since becoming law, the ongoing toll of physical injuries and fatalities at work reminds us of the compelling need for the OSH Act and its many state equivalents to protect workers. In addition, various research and public education initiatives are now spotlighting workplace hazards that severely threaten the psychological health of today’s employees. Toxic work environments generally, the extraordinary workplace stressors prompted by the COVID pandemic, and workplace bullying and abuse, among other concerns, have underscored the human costs of trauma, fear, anxiety, and stress.

Against this backdrop, this essay encourages a needed conversation about extending the regulatory reach of the OSH Act to cover severe psychological harms at work and to anticipate the impact of added enforcement responsibilities on the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Most significantly, it will examine two potential policy responses: First, applying the current OSH Act to workplace bullying, pursuant to a theory first advanced by Professor Susan Harthill; and second, amending the OSH Act to expressly cover workplace hazards that may cause severe psychological harm.

Four basic postulates about women and workplace bullying

Recently my law review essay, “Four Basic Postulates Concerning Women and Workplace Bullying in the United States” (freely downloadable pdf here), was published in the FIU Law Review (2023), based at the Florida International University College of Law. It appeared as a collection of invited responses to FIU law professor Kerri Lynn Stone’s excellent book, Panes of the Glass Ceiling: The Unspoken Beliefs Behind the Law’s Failure to Help Women Achieve Professional Parity (2022).

I wrote the essay to propose and expound upon four basic postulates concerning women and bullying in the American workplace:

• First, “women are likely to be disproportionately targeted for workplace bullying, a reality that carries multifaceted implications.”
• Second, “men are disproportionately the perpetrators of workplace bullying, another reality that carries important significance for understanding relational workplace mistreatment.”
• Third, “complicated dynamics are in play when women are alleged perpetrators of workplace bullying.”
• Fourth, “the enactment of workplace anti-bullying laws can help to fill some of the legal gaps confronted by women who face both bullying and discriminatory harassment at work.”

Podcast episode about HR and workplace bullying

Last fall, Dr. Gary Namie (founder, Workplace Bullying Institute) and I jointly appeared on a podcast episode, “Wiping Out Workplace Bullying,” as part of HRMorning‘s “Voices of HR” series. The series is hosted by Berta Aldrich, a high-ranking senior executive turned author, executive trainer, and coach who engaged us in a very lively conversation.

The episode runs for almost an hour, but for those interested in a more pro-active role for HR in addressing workplace bullying, I think it is useful. Here are the links:

• Apple podcasts (audio), click here.
• Spotify (audio), click here.
• YouTube (video), click here.

Podcast episode about personality characteristics associated with bullying

Earlier this week, I was interviewed about bullying generally, and workplace bullying specifically, by the Breakfast Show of the Voices of Islam podcast, based in London. Most of the questions surrounded personality traits associated with bullying and bullies, which gave me an opportunity to discuss how both qualities of empathy and Adverse Childhood Experiences can elevate the risks of someone becoming a bully or a target.

You may access the podcast episode from SoundCloud click here without charge (free registration necessary). My segment starts at the 1:28 mark (1 hour, 28 minutes) and runs for about 12 minutes.

A rookie workplace anti-bullying activist scores a win in Oregon

Oregon legislation adopted in 2023

Recently I heard from Misty Orlando, a workplace anti-bullying activist in Oregon, who shared with me her story of advocacy before her state legislature. Ultimately, thanks to her efforts and those of her fellow activists, last year the State of Oregon enacted a directive to the state’s labor department to develop a “model respectful workplace policy” that can be adopted voluntarily by employers (link here).

Their goal was much more ambitious. They wanted to see the enactment of more full-fledged protections against workplace bullying for all of Oregon’s workers. Instead, Oregon adopted language directing the state’s Bureau of Labor and Industries to:

• “prepare a model respectful workplace policy that employers may adopt,” taking “into consideration existing respectful workplace policies”; and,
• “create informational materials that identify the harms to employees and employers caused by workplace bullying and make the materials available to employers.”

I greatly enjoyed my conversation with Misty and salute her and fellow activists for their work. This was their first go-round in advocating for workplace anti-bullying laws. Their efforts reinforce what we’ve seen in other states, namely, greater legislative receptivity to proposals concerning employer education and optional policies about workplace bullying, rather than favorably regarding new laws making workplace bullying an unlawful employment practice.

Nevertheless, this represents a step forward, and serves as a testament to effective citizen advocacy.

Let’s safeguard free speech, while learning how to engage in more constructive conversations about difficult topics

Video screenshot: Program speaker Prof. Nadine Strossen is seated immediately to the right of the podium, with DY on the left. Suffolk U. Law Review editor-in-chief Sara Levien is at the podium, opening the program. We are joined by a panel of Suffolk law students.

Earlier this month, I had the distinct pleasure of moderating a program on freedom of speech and expression, featuring Professor Nadine Strossen (Emerita, New York Law School), former President of the American Civil Liberties Union. The program was part of the Donahue Lecture Series sponsored by the Suffolk University Law Review. As a faculty co-advisor to the Law Review, I was delighted to be a part of this event.

In planning the program, Professor Strossen, an internationally recognized authority on free speech, suggested that we cast aside the typical lecture format and create a more interactive conversation. So we started with an interview that I conducted, followed by questions from a panel of Suffolk law students, and concluding with questions and comments from our audience.

The event was a tremendous success. Before an overflow room of attendees, and sparked by Prof. Strossen’s thoughtful, insightful, and engaged remarks and responses, as well as great questions from our student panelists, the program made for a lively 75-minute exchange. You can watch the full event by clicking here.

Prof. Strossen offered passionate defenses of free speech, while carefully dissecting the legal implications of speech and expression in various public sector and private sector settings. You can read a brief summary of some of her major points here. And if you’d like a very informative and accessible primer on speech protections in the U.S., then I happily recommend her 2023 book, Free Speech: What Everyone Needs to Know (Oxford U. Press).

But wait, there’s another big thing to consider!

I have long been in general agreement with Nadine Strossen’s embrace of freedom of speech. And especially during times like this, safeguarding free speech — subject to reasonable restrictions such as prohibiting defamation, fraud, or targeted harassment and abuse — is of paramount importance toward maintaining an open, democratic society.

In addition to protecting the sanctity of free speech, we all should learn and practice how to converse and listen more constructively. Whether one regards speech as a right or privilege, we have an obligation to exercise it responsibly.

By this, I’m not suggesting the adoption of intrusive speech codes. Nor should we jump all over something that isn’t said in just the right way, in just the right tone. Furthermore, there are instances where righteous anger may be a proper, or at least very understandable, response to deeply offensive or hurtful speech.

Rather, I mean coaching ourselves, and encouraging others, to engage in conversations on sensitive and difficult topics with as much respect and empathy as we can muster.

In addition, exercising self-restraint (which I do not necessarily equate with self-censorship) may be appropriate at times. After all, just because we’re allowed to say something a certain way doesn’t mean we should always do so.

Equally important, we should actively listen to what others have to say, and at least try to understand points of view that may seem opposite of our own. With that kind of listening, we see possibilities for genuine exchange, discovery of unexpected common ground, and perhaps even changing one’s understanding of, or position on, an important issue.

By the way, I fully confess that I have not always followed the precepts I am preaching. Everything I’m suggesting here is easier said than done.

Back to our Donahue Lecture

I was so pleased that the Donahue Lecture was an exemplar of engaging and respectful conversation about difficult and important topics. The event also meant a lot to me personally, as many moons ago, Prof. Strossen was my supervising professor in the Civil Rights Clinic at NYU School of Law, her first academic appointment before moving on to become a constitutional law professor at the New York Law School. Her warmth, intelligence, and student-centered focus were evident then and now, and I was proud to be able to show off our wonderful students at Suffolk Law.

Prior to the event, several student editors of the Law Review shared with me their understandable concern that someone might try to use this occasion to stage a protest in support of their views on some controversial public issue. After all, we’ve seen news accounts of such disruptions at other universities, at times requiring an event to be discontinued in midstream. But I assured them I was confident that, between the professionalism of our guest speaker, our students, and other attendees, I was not concerned about such a possibility.

This was no statement of false bravado. As I planned how to moderate the event, I did consider potential responses should a situation threaten to get out of hand. But I wasn’t girding myself for anything uncomfortable to arise. I had faith that our event would be an example of healthy and informed dialogue. I was so happy that it more than met my expectations.

Origin story: How serving on a non-profit foundation board opened doors to new opportunities

Pages from the PILF fundraising dinner journal

When I discuss career planning with my students, I often urge them to pursue interesting pro bono and volunteer activities not only for the contributions they can make, but also because these activities may open doors to new opportunities.

That certainly was my experience of serving on the board of directors of a small charitable foundation based at New York University, my legal alma mater, as relatively recent graduate of the Law School.

Unlike many law professors whose aspirations to enter academe were present during their law school days, my path to this world was not nearly as intentional. I entered law school wanting to become a public interest lawyer and eventually pursue a career in politics and public policy. During the years immediately following graduation, I was squarely headed in those directions, starting my legal career as Legal Aid lawyer in New York City and becoming active in a local reform Democratic club in central Brooklyn. Eventually, however, the bloody world of academe would draw me away from the bloodsport of litigation and politics.

NYU PILF

Four years after graduating from law school, I accepted an invitation to join the board of directors of the NYU Public Interest Law Foundation (PILF), a small foundation that gave seed-money grants to fledgling public interest and community law projects. The PILF board of directors was comprised of law students (who served dual roles as officers), NYU law faculty, and various lawyers and legal activists. PILF raised most of its money from NYU alums who pledged a share of their income and from New York City law firms that co-sponsored an annual fundraising banquet, which typically drew several hundred people.

I served for four years on the PILF board, the latter three as its chairperson. It was enormously satisfying to be part of an organization whose main purpose was to support new, creative initiatives for providing legal services to underserved groups and for engaging in law reform work. Overall, we had an energetic, high-morale cohort of board members, and our work earned two awards from the National Association for Public Interest Law (now Equal Justice Works) for overall program growth.

In the process, I so enjoyed working with the student officers to organize our events. And I learned a ton about how non-profit organizations work, while building skills and insights that I’ve drawn upon throughout my career.

Unanticipated door opener

One of the PILF board members happened to be a co-coordinator of the Lawyering Program at NYU Law School, an innovative, full-year course that introduces first-year law students to essential legal skills, such as legal writing, research, client interviewing and counseling, negotiation, and advocacy. After one of our board meetings, I casually asked my board colleague if the Lawyering Program might be hiring new instructors any time soon. She said yes and invited me to send her a resume.

I’m not sure what prompted me to make that inquiry. At the time, I was serving as an assistant attorney general in the Labor Bureau of the New York State Attorney General’s office. Although I enjoyed many aspects of the job and worked with excellent attorneys, I knew that I didn’t want to be a litigator for the rest of my legal career. However, I didn’t have a clear idea of where I wanted to go. At that juncture, I certainly did not have an academic career in mind. Teaching in the Lawyering Program simply sounded like an interesting opportunity.

Long story short, I went through a series of interviews and received an offer to join the Program as an entry-level instructor, which I enthusiastically accepted.

I loved teaching in the Lawyering Program. It was very hard, teaching-intensive work, quite a grind for an academic position. I stayed for three years (the maximum permitted for instructors), serving as a co-coordinator of the Program during my third year. During that time, I gained experience and credentials that would make me competitive for tenure-track and other long-term law teaching jobs. I put myself “on the market,” as they say, and came out of it with a tenure-track appointment at Suffolk University Law School in Boston, where I’ve been ever since.

Imagining alternatives

Let’s reverse engineer this path and imagine that I had turned down that invitation to join the PILF board of directors. It’s quite possible that my career sojourn wouldn’t have been nearly as rich and rewarding as it has turned out to be.

Of course, frequent pondering on the “what ifs” in one’s life is a recipe for crazy-making speculation based on a known reality vs. an open-ended, anything-goes alternative. It’s probably wiser to dwell on decisions made and evaluate them accordingly.

In my case, I see two decisions here that led to very good things: (1) joining the PILF board of directors; (2) returning to NYU to teach in its Lawyering Program. I firmly recall making both decisions without reservation, based largely on my belief that I would enjoy these associations immensely. And I did. The bonus was that both led to unforeseen opportunities.

On occasion, I encounter those who make career moves based only on perceived sure bets. Their career moves are carefully plotted, and their trajectories are carefully planned. They avoid even minor risks and pass on commitments of time and energy that potentially divert them from their plan.

Honestly, that may be the best bet toward success. But it also can lead to disappointment, either because one fails to reach certain goals despite their disciplined efforts or finds that what they thought they wanted turned out to be lacking in material ways.

My career approach has been a little different, trying to split the difference between an inflexible path and a series of random choices. The lesson from the story shared here, as I see it, is that I trusted my strong instincts about two opportunities, despite that neither came with any guarantees beyond their own shelf lives.

I’m hardly the only person who has enjoyed some successes by making decisions in such a manner. But at a time when FOMO (fear of missing out) and ROI (return on investment) seem to control too much decision making about vocational choice, I’m happy to put in a good word for taking smart chances now and then.

***

On origin stories: During the ongoing process of culling the mounds of printed material in my possession, I’m often finding stuff that brings back very meaningful memories. Some recall certain origin stories, i.e., those moments that led to significant, defining things in my life. This is the second of three that I’ll be sharing on this blog, including lessons learned from them. My first recollection, “Origin story: Stumbling upon an interview about workplace bullying,” can be found here.

When dealing with workplace bullying, don’t overlook good nutrition

Last week, I received an email from Torii Bottomley, a veteran educator who experienced workplace bullying in the Boston Public School system and spent years in an ultimately successful, yet exhausting legal battle to recover workers’ compensation benefits. Her core message was simple: When dealing with bullying at work and other forms of traumatic mistreatment, don’t overlook the vital importance of good nutrition to support your health.

With Torii’s permission:

I used to say the First Response to a bullying situation would be: get a lawyer, get a notebook, and to that I would add get Meals on Wheels.

So much of the damage I am trying to heal from is the result of years of poor nutrition because I could not take care of myself.  The poor nutrition exacerbated the mental and physical toll that the PTSD took on me. IF I had thought about and availed myself to meal deliveries which I could have “afforded” at the time because Meals on Wheels is free or a contribution, my recovery would have been easier and I would not have lost so much.

(For readers not familiar, Meals on Wheels is a non-profit organization that works with local networks to provide daily, in-person delivery of hot, prepared meals to seniors and other eligible individuals.)

Trauma, nutrition, and mental health

Although healthier eating is often a casualty of psychological trauma and other severe stress generally, my exchange with Torii’s prompted me to realize that we don’t highlight this important aspect of self-care nearly enough in discussing how to cope with abusive work environments and the road to recovery.

In a blog piece for Psychology Today titled “How Trauma, Nutrition, and Mental Health Fit Together” (link here) connecting trauma, nutrition, and mental health, Dr. Gia Marson explains that “(w)hen it comes to our basic need for nourishment, trauma can interfere with healthy eating. Traumatic experiences can have impacts on food-related experiences and behaviors including”:

• Eating without routine
• Stocking up on food.
• Losing control with food.
• Restricting or controlling food.
• Consuming high-fat, sugar, and/or salt diets.
• Body shaming experiences.
• Relying on easy-to-access foods.
• Experiencing food scarcity.
• Basing decisions about food on short-term needs.
• Feeling shame utilizing food assistance.
• Difficulty planning and budgeting for food.

More from Torii Bottomley

In a follow-up email, Torii revised her suggested “First Response” kit for targets of workplace bullying to include:

• lawyer
• therapist
• doctor
• Notebook
• Meals on Wheels
• therapy animal

For those not eligible for Meals on Wheels or a similar service, I recommend searching “advice on trauma and nutrition” for ideas and guidance.

Family and friends can play an important role here, too, by providing encouragement and support to maintain a good diet, as well as cooking healthy meals or helping out with the grocery bill. In addition to asking “how are you doing?,” one might add, “how are you eating?”

In sum, maintaining a healthy diet is an integral part of one’s toolkit for dealing with and recovering from workplace bullying and other traumatic experiences. Thank you to Torii Bottomley for providing this very important reminder.

The Economist’s Bartleby advises: Don’t retire!

The Economist‘s “Bartleby” column typically offers thoughtful contemplations on work and career related matters pertinent to managers, executives, and other professional workers. In the current issue of this venerable British newsmagazine, Bartleby serves up a thought-provoking headline: “Why you should never retire” (link here, but may be paywalled).

Bartley acknowledges two main questions that many professionals face when pondering retirement: Finances (can I afford to retire?) and purpose (what shall I do during retirement that brings meaning?).

Bartleby then adds a third question, one that is related to purpose but more nuanced: If I retire, how will I feel relevant? In other words, “leisure gives you all the time in the world but tends to marginalise you as you are no longer in the game.” The piece adds:

…(C)an anything truly replace the framework and buzz of being part of the action? You can have a packed diary devoid of deadlines, meetings and spreadsheets and flourish as a consumer of theatre matinees, art exhibitions and badminton lessons. Hobbies are all well and good for many. But for the extremely driven, they can feel pointless and even slightly embarrassing.

That is because there is depth in being useful. And excitement, even in significantly lower doses than are typical earlier in a career, can act as an anti-ageing serum.

There may be something of a gendered component to these questions, with men disproportionately linking purpose and relevance to their work. I know that I fall into this category. By contrast, I also know some moms holding very significant jobs whose kids and grandkids would offer all the purpose and relevance they need in retirement. (Of course, no doubt some men fall into this category as well.)

In addition, as the Bartleby piece suggests, abundant options exist for engaging in meaningful, richly rewarding activities with the freedom of time provided by retirement. It could be in the form of volunteer work taking advantage of one’s professional skills, or perhaps picking up new skills that lead to a brand-new form of service. Maybe it involves giving one’s heart to a house full of animals or working at the local rescue shelter.

Speaking personally

During the heart of the pandemic, when my university held classes almost exclusively online (via Zoom), I frequently thought about retirement. In particular, teaching larger classes on Zoom was a draining experience for me. I found myself thinking that if this was my future as a professor, then I’d want to retire as soon as feasibly possible.

Today, I have a new burst of energy for teaching since returning to the in-person classroom. I also have a deepened engagement with my scholarly, public education, advocacy work on topics such as workplace bullying, therapeutic jurisprudence, and advancing human dignity generally. Purpose? Relevance? I feel both in abundance right now, and I’m trying to maximize those experiences and opportunities.

Retirement: The enormous privilege of choice

Of course, all of the above presumes the enormous privilege of choice when it comes to a retirement decision, and that option does not extend to everyone. Here in the U.S., we are in the unfolding stages of a major retirement funding crisis that will stretch over the generations without a big fix, a topic I have written about often on this blog. (For example, here, here, and here.) Millions are working well past traditional retirement ages because they need the money, not because they’re finding any deep intrinsic rewards in the work itself.

The creation of a better retirement system is a big public policy challenge for America. Despite the glaring human needs, however, I don’t sense a lot of political will for enacting much-needed reforms, especially if they must be paid for by the powerful and well-to-do.

Thus, for those who continue to work deep into their later years because they must, I hope we will discover our heart quality sooner than later when it comes to boosting our Social Security program, among other things. And for those who continue to work because of all the rewards it may deliver, I hope it will be with a sense of gratitude and responsibility for the work itself, matched by a spirit of generosity towards helping those in need.

Published: “Four Basic Postulates Concerning Women and Workplace Bullying in the United States”

I’m happy to share with you my latest publication, a short law review essay, “Four Basic Postulates Concerning Women and Workplace Bullying in the United States,” appearing in the FIU Law Review (2023) published by the Florida International University College of Law. You may freely access a pdf here.

Here is the abstract to the piece:

Responding to Kerri Lynn Stone’s “Panes of the Glass Ceiling,” this article delves into the pervasive issue of workplace bullying and its nuanced impact on women in professional settings. Stone’s book identifies distinct “panes” of gender bias hindering women’s progress, with a focus on workplace bullying as a major sub-theme. The essay proposes four postulates, drawing on national surveys by the Workplace Bullying Institute and articles from the author’s professional blog, Minding the Workplace. Emphasizing the disproportionate targeting of women, the role of male perpetrators, complexities surrounding female perpetrators, and the potential of anti-bullying laws, the essay contributes to understanding and addressing workplace gender dynamics.

The table of contents pictured above gives you a bit more detail about the piece.

This piece is an invited response to FIU law professor Kerri Lynn Stone’s excellent book, Panes of the Glass Ceiling: The Unspoken Beliefs Behind the Law’s Failure to Help Women Achieve Professional Parity (Cambridge U. Press, 2022) (link here to order). Professor Stone is a long-time colleague and friend, and we have shared an interest in workplace bullying for many years. Her book includes a chapter on workplace bullying as it impacts women in the professional workplace.

My essay is less a response to Prof. Stone’s book — which I highly recommend! — and more a complement to it. I simply wanted to amplify some basic points about what we know about women and workplace bullying, based on research, analysis, and commentary published over the years.