The Washington Post profiled Tim Cook, CEO of one of the world’s most valuable companies. Cook graduated from the high school in Robertsdale, Alabama, in 1978.
It was there, faced with stark racism, that Cook developed his sense of social justice.
Cook is gay, and he knew he was different. He is not celebrated in Robertson, as he should be, probably because he is gay. No, because he is gay.
Cook’s experiences growing up in Robertsdale – detailed by him in public speeches and recalled by others — are key to understanding how a once-quiet tech executive became one of the world’s most outspoken corporate leaders. Apple has long emphasized the privacy of its products, but today Cook talks about privacy not as an attribute of a device, but as a right — a view colored by his own history.
For Cook, it was in this tiny town midway between Mobile, Ala., and Pensacola, Fla., that a book-smart boy developed what he calls his “moral sense.”
On the surface easy-going and popular, according to former classmates, Cook seemed too aware of the injustices around him.
“I have to believe that growing up in Alabama, during the 1960s and witnessing what he did, especially as someone who is gay, he understood the dangers of remaining silent,” said Kerry Kennedy, a human-rights activist who has met Cook several times and whose father, Robert F. Kennedy, Cook considers one of his heroes.
“He’s not afraid to stand up when he sees something wrong,” she added.
***
Cook’s chance to stand up came early, when he was in just the sixth or seventh grade.
In the early 1970s, he was riding his new 10-speed bicycle at night along a rural road just outside Robertsdale when he spotted a burning cross. He pedaled closer.
He saw Klansmen in white hoods and robes. The cross was on the property of a family he knew was black. It was almost more than he could comprehend.
Without thinking, he shouted, “Stop!”
The group turned toward the boy. One of them raised his hood. Cook recognized the man as a local deacon at one of the dozen churches in town, but not the one attended by Cook’s family.
The man warned the boy to keep moving.
“This image was permanently imprinted in my brain and it would change my life forever,” Cook recalled in a speech in 2013, an incident that he also has recounted to friends.
A few years later, at age 16, Cook won an essay contest sponsored by a rural electric company and, as part of the prize, met Alabama Gov. George Wallace, the segregationist who resisted the federal government’s attempts to integrate the state’s public schools during the ’60s.
Cook shook Wallace’s hand that day, but described it as “a betrayal of my own beliefs,” he said in a speech last year. “It felt wrong. Like I was selling a piece of my soul.”
On the same trip, Cook met President Jimmy Carter at the White House. To Cook, the difference between the two men was impossible to miss — “one was right and one was wrong.”
Knowing Tim Cook’s moral center is strong, I wonder if he would stand with those of us who are trying to stop the privatization of public education, the effort by giant corporations to monetize the schools and turn them into “investments” with a sure “rate of return”?

Time will tell. Let’s hope so! Thanks, Disne.
LikeLike
I think now is a good time to find out. The longer we go down this path, the longer it will take to recover.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Education.
LikeLike
Go for it !
LikeLike
He might, if you promise not to mention the LA Ipad fiasco again.
LikeLike
Very funny.
LikeLike
…or Apple’s reliance on Chinese manufacturing companies that use child and other slave labor to produce Apple products.
LikeLike
The same kind of child slave labor the U.S. had before Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938.
Then, of course, World War II got in the way before US corporations were free to start moving their factories out of the U.S. to countries where child slave labor still exists.
Passing a law in the U.S. doesn’t change the laws or lack of laws in other countries and those few who live by avarice do not care who suffers as long as they make lots of money. Take away their ability to enrich themsevles with a law and they go looking for places to do business where those laws do not exist.
LikeLike
or the $180 billion that Apple keeps in offshore accounts thereby avoiding US corporate tax.
LikeLike
Monetizing these autocratic, publicly funded, for profit, private sector schools is bad enough but turning those schools into educational gulags for children that are designed to break their spirit and turn them into products for corporations is even worse.
LikeLike
Let Tim Cook remove all computers and I-this and I-that Apple has sold to districts – billions worth. Remove them k-5. Children of this age should be working with their hands – handwriting, tinkering, drawing, etc. An ape can learn how to operate an I-pad and such easy tasks as clicking and dragging need to be introduced LATER ON. PROFIT “I-Clouds” good judgement and common sense – what is best for students is last on the list.
And further, see the letter written to David Hespe:
David C. Hespe
Commissioner
New Jersey Department of Education
100 River View Plaza
P.O. Box 500
Trenton, NJ 08625
Dear Commissioner Hespe,
Out of concern for my son’s education and the education of all his classmates in Englewood Cliffs Public Schools, I have requested the next PARCC test be administered via pencil and paper. I have requested this for the following reasons:
1.Article after article both in professional journals and the press clearly show students perform better across the board with the pencil and paper version of PARCC.
2. In order to prepare students for a computer administered PARCC, emphasis on computer operation and keyboarding in the lowest grades have pushed aside teaching handwriting and other important “analog” skills so important for child’s development.
3. The inordinate amount of tax dollars used to purchase technology to make administering a test via computer possible – especially in the lowest grade levels.
On the local level, it has been unclear if districts are free to choose how to administer the test, so I contacted your offices at the DOE. After speaking with several officials, a conference call was organized between me and Don Mitchell, your deputy commissioner and his legal council, on Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 3:30 p.m. They cited the following regulation as your authority dictating to districts how the PARCC test can be administered:
6A:8-4.1 Statewide assessment system
(a) The Commissioner, in accordance with N.J.S.A. 18A:7A-10, may implement assessment of student achievement in the State’s public schools in any grade(s) and by such assessments as he or she deems appropriate. The Commissioner shall report to the State Board the results of such assessments.
Since the regulation is vague, I have asked Mr. Don Mitchell and his legal council for clarification in writing whether you, Mr. David Hespe, require all districts to administer the PARCC test by computer. I would also like to know what the consequences would be, if any, were a district to administer the pencil and paper test as they saw fit.
Should you insist on the computerized version, students would not perform as well as they might have, and this would be a poor reflection on themselves, their school, and the entire state. As a parent, I would be very upset knowing my child could have performed better.
I ask that you clarify this to all districts, including my own in Englewood Cliffs in the coming days. Thank you in advance for your attention regarding this important matter.
Sincerely,
David Di Gregorio, Parent
Englewood Cliffs, NJ
CC:
Superintendents
Press
LikeLike
Michael Molinar, Executive Director of Educational Services for Amherst Schools in Lorain County, Ohio (Dayton Daily News, “Online State Tests Got Worse Scores”, Wed. March 9, 2016) found, after review of responses from 428 school districts, out of 610, that test scores for online tests skewed significantly lower than paper and pencil test scores. There were significantly lower scores for schools, when they switched to computerized testing.
Molinar’s data base is at https://goo.gl/Td7NJH
LikeLike
Thank you Linda. I am still waiting for an answer. Meanwhile, I wish there were just one superintendent to challenge Mr. Hespe on this.
LikeLike
Local deacon. Doesn’t surprise me. How these people can quote the Bible without understanding it is frightening to sane humans.
LikeLike
I’m not sure it would be less frightening to hear people quote the Bible with understanding.
LikeLike
Especially since “understanding” is a matter of debate. Just witness the myriad of translations, not to mention the number of religious sects that revere the(ir version of) Bible.
LikeLike
Well, the enigma and paradox of even asking if Tim Cook, or anyone, to stand with us against the forces of privatization is that, “what makes privatization wrong”, or “how does one decide what is just, right and fair”, or “is a sense of social justice universal, or only based on context”.
A great teacher noted “even gentiles love those that love them, but I command you to love even your enemies”.
So, if social Darwinism is to be believed, and Biblical ethics rejected, then why cannot a larger corporation not consume a smaller one? Why does anyone care about fairness, when all the matters in Darwinian economics is the success of one’s own bottom line?
The connection between Hitler, Darwinism and Naziism has been thoroughly documented, and the secularist could argue that Adolf “justly applied” his concepts of “fitness” to the context at hand. That he acted in a morally-relative manner, suiting the beliefs, needs and outcomes of his agenda. That is was neither inherently morally wrong, and may have been pragmatically right, fulfilling a utilitarian need of the society.
So, to argue with a sense of universal justice, righteousness and fairness requires an omniscient frame-of-reference, and I believe that is only found in Scripture. Otherwise, all our debates about fairness are just sophistry and polemics about one’s opinions.
LikeLike
‘even gentiles love those that love them, but I command you to love even your enemies”.
“God VAMmed”
Jesus was VAMmed
By Romans was damned
But Christian command
Is “offer your hand”
LikeLike
“So, to argue with a sense of universal justice, righteousness and fairness requires an omniscient frame-of-reference, and I believe that is only found in Scripture. Otherwise, all our debates about fairness are just sophistry and polemics about one’s opinions.”
Disagree. It is found in Philosophy.
LikeLike
And let us not forget that various scriptures advocate mass killings as just violence. Even if it were true that justice must solely be dictated by a heavenly, omniscent presence (which I do not personally believe), scripture is written and interpreted by… people. The contradictions throughout “scripture” make this clear.
LikeLike
Good points Ed Detective; yet, for the millions that have faith in Scripture we see no contradiction between “you shall not kill” and the doctrine/principle of a “just war”, or that capital punishment is somehow murder, and not retributive justice. If you want to personally email at: rlapworth@dadeschools.net we can dialogue about verses advocating war. Let me just point out that “He that shows no favoritism or partiality to any person” commanded the Amalekites to be wiped out, because of the unprovoked evil they had done to Israel. Yet, later He commands Nebuchadnezzar (a megalomaniac tyrant Babylonian) to wipe out Jerusalem (the city as “the apple of My eye”) because of the sins Israel had committed. No favoritism, perfect justice….IMO.
Grace!
LikeLike
Philosophy (theistic or materialistic) used to derive ethics is only as valid (if a postmodernist can even use that term) as the axioms and corollaries it is founded upon. So, no, philosophy cannot answer universal questions, unless it is built upon universal propositions. For example, a Darwinian philosophy built upon the premise “members within a specie are in competition and the fittest will survive” can then justify the oppression and death of those that seem to be “less fit” (whoever gets to define human fitness..and no, nobody has that right). Whereas, a theistic philosophy proposes “all people created equally, with equal value” (which is the foundation of our Western Judeo-Christian culture, and our communal sense of justice and fairness). I’m glad our Constitution and culture were not built upon Darwin.
In these postmodern times there is too much epistemological “Robin Hood” going on. People deny the foundations of our Western heritage and reject theology, but then want to claim a universal sense of justice and fairness (from their materialistic premises???, a contradiction). Either people are equally created, or they are not; and if they are not, then there is no such thing as absolute equity. and we are left with the humanistic concept of “might makes right”.
LikeLike
“Good points Ed Detective; yet, for the millions that have faith in Scripture we see no contradiction between “you shall not kill” and the doctrine/principle of a “just war”, or that capital punishment is somehow murder, and not retributive justice…
…Let me just point out that “He that shows no favoritism or partiality to any person” commanded the Amalekites to be wiped out, because of the unprovoked evil they had done to Israel. Yet, later He commands Nebuchadnezzar (a megalomaniac tyrant Babylonian) to wipe out Jerusalem (the city as “the apple of My eye”) because of the sins Israel had committed. No favoritism, perfect justice….IMO.”
You are ultimately making a philosophical argument about what “justice” is, even though you have read it in a book that you call scripture. It is an assumption that it is “justice” to kill someone in retribution, or to wipe out a civilization. It is a philosophical argument that can be analyzed and opposed.
LikeLike
“Philosophy (theistic or materialistic) used to derive ethics is only as valid (if a postmodernist can even use that term) as the axioms and corollaries it is founded upon.”
This also applies to your scriptures.
“So, no, philosophy cannot answer universal questions, unless it is built upon universal propositions. For example, a Darwinian philosophy built upon the premise “members within a specie are in competition and the fittest will survive” can then justify the oppression and death of those that seem to be “less fit” (whoever gets to define human fitness..and no, nobody has that right).”
…Agreed, and I fail to see how “scriptures” are excluded from this principle.
“Whereas, a theistic philosophy proposes “all people created equally, with equal value” (which is the foundation of our Western Judeo-Christian culture, and our communal sense of justice and fairness).”
You do not need theism to arrive at, and support, this fundamental belief.
“I’m glad our Constitution and culture were not built upon Darwin.”
Me too, especially since Darwin’s work and theory is widely misinterpreted and reinterpreted beyond its intended bounds. I have not studied all of Darwin but have reason to believe that this “survival of the fittest” concept is exaggerated, misunderstood, and misapplied in pop science/culture… it would be far from the first time.
“In these postmodern times there is too much epistemological “Robin Hood” going on. People deny the foundations of our Western heritage and reject theology, but then want to claim a universal sense of justice and fairness (from their materialistic premises???, a contradiction). Either people are equally created, or they are not; and if they are not, then there is no such thing as absolute equity. and we are left with the humanistic concept of “might makes right”.”
It’s pretty simple as I see it. To be equally “created” is unnecessary in order to determine justice, and that it must exist. Created or not, it does not logically follow, nor is it true, that the humanistic concept of fairness (and its application) is “might makes right.” That is a false caricature of humanism/secular philosophy — at most, one branch of thought. In my view, justice must (and perhaps, can only) be understood by deep insight, not decree.
LikeLike
The only assumption that needs to be made to philosophically determine “justice” is that life is good and worth living (for all humans, if not all living things). Don’t need scripture or a belief in deity. Without true “gnosis,” anyways — which may or may not exist — scripture/theism is faith and assumption all the same. Any approach you want to use, including faith in religion, you are assuming at least one principle about humanity.
LikeLike
There’s also an ENORMOUS difference between Darwinist theory, with deals with natural selection, to Social Darwinism, from which we get the term “survival of the fittest.” It’s Social Darwinism that justifies treating other groups as subhuman. Not only is Social Darwinism deplorable, but it’s a real twist that I don’t think Darwin every envisioned or sanctioned.
LikeLike
Read the “Origin of Species”; Sir Charles became a racist as the thought of putting humans on a “ladder of ascendance” of fitness. He believed that the darker skin Fuegian Indians he visited in Chile would be eventually wiped out by the “superior” Caucasian races (races he believed had evolved to a higher degree of fitness because of their economic and technological competitions, ex. the “developed nations”). Whereas, “primitive” tribes had not benefited from the intense competition (being isolated) and therefore were less “evolved”; because Charles made the genetic-fallacy of connecting technological advancement with more/better selected brain function.
His views on woman were quite misogynous too.
Yes, sociobiology may be the evil step-child of evolutionary theory, but it may also be viewed as the logical conclusion to a materialistic paradigm.
LikeLike
It also speaks of peoples’ tendency to confuse science and philosophy. You can do both, but a scientific theory is not a philosophical theory. Science is not really about what we “should” or “should not” do, although it can help to inform that.
LikeLike
Comte-Sponville defines philosophy as thinking/cogitating/debating/arguing without the benefit of proof. (and no the bible is not proof)
LikeLike
Knowing Tim Cook’s moral center is strong, I wonder if he would stand with those of us who are trying to stop the privatization of public education, the effort by giant corporations to monetize the schools and turn them into “investments” with a sure “rate of return”?
Wishful thinking? Probably.
LikeLike
“The Apple Core”
The Apple Core
Contains the seed
Of help, for sure
But also greed
LikeLike
Did Apple’s Arthur Rock? Please see second photo…Even Silicon Valley has a gang problem…
http://anthonymize.net/2016/01/25/and-the-oscar-goes-to-wait-oscar-is-not-here/
LikeLike
It certainly would be good, if he did.
LikeLike
Not sure his morals beat his business…
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/inside-collapse-new-republic
“Hughes’s eroding relationship with the staff took on an ideological edge. On the morning that Tim Cook, the C.E.O. of Apple, announced that he was gay, MacGillis wrote a note to “the Plank,” T.N.R.’s internal e-mail listserv for writers and editors. “I see the celebration of his announcement, while entirely justifiable, as another sign of what’s happened to liberalism today, where rights/identity liberalism trumps economic liberalism,” he wrote. “This is, after all, a guy who embodies so much of what’s amiss in the age of inequality—pulling down $378 million in 2011 alone; Apple skirting taxes more brazenly than anyone else—yet those revelations have caused barely a stir.”
Hughes responded to the note six minutes later: “I think those are valid issues, although Apple has acted squarely within the law,” he wrote. “The law itself is fucked up. But I don’t think you can underestimate the difficulty of his decision or how tone deaf that argument would be today.”
The other editorial employees on the list were surprised by the response. It was an internal listserv for writers and editors, and the staffers didn’t realize that Hughes, who had relinquished his title as editor-in-chief when he installed Vidra, was on it. MacGillis responded by saying that he would hold off on writing, but added, “Just for the record, though, it is not so clear that Apple acted squarely within the law. The law’s a mess, but Apple pushed the bounds of it more than anyone.” He pasted text from a piece in the Times that questioned some of Apple’s practices.
“I’m confused,” Hughes wrote back. “Has anyone, including this article, said what they did was illegal? Companies have an obligation to their shareholders to maximize shareholder value, including through strategic tax planning.”
LikeLike
Huffpo reported Cook attends the secret AEI World Forum, with other tech CEO’s. N. J. Senator Cory Booker attended in 2015, according to Bloomberg.
LikeLike
Well, we don’t lose anything by trying. I would send him a link to “Defies Measurement” as a start. While there are many wonderful books, reading them takes a little buy-in first. I’m sure there are other videos equally worthy but I just watched DM again. It’s powerful (and free!).
LikeLike