Why Melania Trump may have liked Michelle Obama’s speech

Ms. Trump’s near-repetition of the first lady’s words suggests the two agree on an approach to education that views children in a whole new light.

AP Photos
In this combination of photos, Melania Trump, left, wife of Republican Presidential Candidate Donald Trump, speaks during the opening day of the Republican National Convention in Cleveland July 18, and Michelle Obama, wife of then- Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama, speaks at the Democratic National Convention in 2008. Melania Trump's well-received speech Monday contained passages that match nearly word-for-word the speech that first lady Michelle Obama.

Political pundits have jumped all over Melania Trump for parts of her GOP convention speech that sounded very similar to one by Michelle Obama at the 2008 Democratic convention. Plagiarism is obviously wrong but in this case there is a bright side. Ms. Trump’s imitation shows the two political parties might actually agree on something.

And it’s not government policy.

As Ms. Obama phrased it in her speech (and which was echoed by Trump): “...we want our children – and all children in this nation – to know that the only limit to the height of your achievements is the reach of your dreams and your willingness to work for them.”

This view of the inherent capabilities of children has become very popular as a way to reduce education inequality in the United States. It comes with slogans like “gritting it out” or “believing in yourself.” Or, as a line in the famous children’s book “The Little Engine That Could,” puts it: “I think I can, I think I can.”

Yet this approach requires something deeper than self-empowerment or positive encouragement. It rests on the idea that children, whether they are poor or live in a dysfunctional family, can rise above their circumstances by relying on something in everyone's identity.

A new study, published this spring by the National Academy of Sciences, hints at this mental reality. A team of researchers at Stanford University used nationwide data on high school students in Chile to find out why certain students from poor families were able to do as well in school as students from wealthier families. The defining difference: The poorer students believed that intelligence is readily available and can grow and be developed.

Or as the study stated: Such students “tend to see difficult tasks as a way to increase their abilities, and seek out challenging learning experiences that enable them to do so.”

Too many educators and parents believe intelligence to be a static given in each person. As The New York Times recently wrote: “Measurable intelligence owes something to genetic endowment but also depends heavily on environmental inputs, such as the number of words spoken to a child by her caregivers.”

This study, however, suggests intelligence is a wellspring to draw on, either by individuals who perceive it in themselves or who are coached into seeing it. Grit can help. The right teacher or parent can help. Being self-assured can help. But all these are amplified by understanding the idea of intelligence as abundant.

The study suggests that this approach may “alleviate poverty and economic inequality.” Perhaps that is one good reason why one of Trump’s speechwriters was so taken by Michelle Obama’s speech.  The two parties have found common ground.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Why Melania Trump may have liked Michelle Obama’s speech
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today