My sister, Elizabeth (“Ms. Ski”) Sciabarra, began her career at BTHS as an Apprentice Teacher of English in September 1972. She was officially appointed in 1977, and would go on to become Coordinator of Student Affairs and Assistant Principal of Pupil Personnel Services at Tech. She later served for nearly a decade as principal of New Dorp High School on Staten Island, moving on to the Deputy Superintendency of Brooklyn and Staten Island High Schools and the Deputy Superintendency of High Schools. Her career with the NYC Department of Education reached its apex when she became Superintendent of Selective Schools and founder of the Office of Student Enrollment and the High School Admissions Program.
Upon her retirement from the DOE in 2010, Ski would return to her Tech roots, and eventually become Executive Director of the Alumni Foundation, a position from which she stepped down at the end of June 2021 due to her current health challenges.
Even though she was never a Tech graduate, she has always held Tech close to her heart. One might say that as a member of the “class of 1972”, she has had a depth of love for Tech for virtually half the years of its existence. So, yesterday, she was elated to receive from the Alumni Foundation this wonderful Centennial Package (pictured below). She hopes to participate in the Virtual Homecoming event on Saturday, April 9, 2022.
My sister, Elizabeth Sciabarra, wanted to extend her heartfelt appreciation to every single person who has donated to the #GoFundSki campaign to raise $150,000 toward her care needs as she remains in-hospice at home. Over a thousand people have contributed since this project was posted, at 5:26 pm on Friday, March 26, 2022. The goal has been exceeded—in just ten days!
Ultimately, what has most moved my sister are the words of encouragement she has received and the personal reminiscences that have been posted to the #GoFundSki page. These are the kinds of testimonials that one reads at a memorial. But they are now a living testament, which she is processing daily in a deeply emotional way. It has allowed her to truly grasp that her life really did count—and continues to count—in terms of the professional and personal impact that she has made. This outpouring of love and support is the greatest gift of all.
My sister’s at-home care is a constantly evolving situation. Every cent we raise helps to maintain her quality of life moving forward during this increasingly difficult period. We appreciate any additional contributions—whatever the amount of your donation.
Addendum: Several friends expressed their apologies to me on Facebook, in email, and even on the phone, that they have not been able to contribute to this successful campaign for my sister. One friend on Facebook stated: “I’m sorry that I cannot help.” To that friend, I said:
You have helped with your comforting words of love and support all these months as my dear friend. So many people are unable to provide material assistance at this time. But we have been blessed to have experienced spiritual support on every level, and nobody should ever apologize for being unable to help financially. You’ve been by my side for so many months now. So I say this not only to you, but to others who have been unable to donate. Your kind and caring words, expressions of love and support are so deeply appreciated during difficult times like this … and I thank you for that from the bottom of my heart.
On behalf of my sister, I am sharing this publicly—and sending our appreciation to those who have continued to show their love and support. This is a GoFundMe for my sister. #GoFundSki to donate!
***
This is the kind of appeal that the family of Elizabeth Sciabarra (Ms. Ski to her students) never wanted to post. But we are facing some very difficult realities. My sister became seriously ill and nearly died in November 2020, which was followed by extensive spinal surgery in mid-March 2021. We nearly lost her again in mid-October 2021. Since that time, she has been receiving in-home hospice. As her devoted brother, I have been her primary caregiver—despite dealing with my own lifelong medical issues. As my own health has been compromised over these many months, we have been compelled to turn to health aides to assist with my sister’s in-home care.
My sister brings in a pension from her many years of service as an educator in the New York City public school system. She also brings in a Social Security retirement check. Given the state of American healthcare, she is in the unenviable position of being in that great “middle” ground where so many others find themselves—not “wealthy” enough to cover all her medical expenses; too “wealthy” to qualify for Medicaid. As a woman who has worked for over fifty years, and paid millions of dollars in taxes to local, state, and federal governments, she qualifies for a single Medicare home health aide, 4 hours a day, 5 days a week, though she needs 24/7 care.
Having maxed-out some assistance from the Council of Supervisors and Administrators for both the 2021 and 2022 calendar years, she is spending, on average, approximately $15,000 a month on aides and other non-insured medical supplies—more than she earns with her pension and Social Security combined. She has sold her car, exhausted her savings, and cashed-in retirement accounts—paying taxes on that too. Complete financial collapse can be avoided if my sister is placed in a Medicare-insured inpatient hospice, which would constitute a dramatic change to her quality of life. She wanted to remain at home, but without the financial capacity to do so, she will be compelled to make a decision that will break all our hearts. And hers most of all. Out of personal embarrassment and a sense of pride, she never wanted to make an appeal such as this. But after being in-and-out of hospitals and medical facilities for 17 months, even she realizes that this situation is financially unsustainable, threatening her ability to pay for even the basic necessities of life … food, clothing, and shelter.
We appreciate anything anyone can offer; we have no hope of paying anyone back. We only hope that a woman who, as an educator, devoted her life to helping thousands upon thousands of children and young adults, can raise enough funds that would allow her a level of dignity moving forward—despite the serious health challenges she continues to face every hour of every day.
Sincerely, Chris Matthew Sciabarra (on behalf of my sister)
I was shocked to learn today (H/T to FB friend Shal Marriott) of the death (on February 26, 2022) of Paul Cantor, the American literary critic who was the Clifton Waller Barrett Professor in the English Department at the University of Virginia. Paul was 76.
Born in Brooklyn, New York in 1945, he would go on to write extensively on a wide range of topics, from Shakespeare and English Romanticism to pop culture. I was introduced to his work through our mutual friend Stephen Cox, with whom he edited a fine 2010 anthology, Literature and the Economics of Liberty: Spontaneous Order in Culture.
I contacted Paul for the first time in December 2021 to invite him to submit a review essay to The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, an invitation which he enthusiastically accepted. I found him to be an amicable and hilarious guy. He admitted to being a “frustrated stand-up comedian,” who was looking into “booking a lounge in Vegas.” His sense of humor was clearly fueled by his Brooklyn roots. As a native of the East Flatbush section of Brooklyn, he would have had plenty of material to work with. He attended P.S. 208, Meyer Levin Junior High School, and Samuel J. Tilden High School, where he became co-captain of the Math Team before going on to earn an A.B. and Ph.D. at Harvard University in English literature.
He took long subway rides to see Ayn Rand lecture at Hunter College in the 1950s. He said that it “was very exciting to see Rand speak. She had a real flare for the dramatic.” He also attended the NYC seminars of Ludwig von Mises.
In his work on pop culture, Paul had examined TV series as varied as “Gilligan’s Island” and “The X-Files.” He told me that he was already working on essays dealing with “Shark Tank”, “Pawn Stars”, and “The Profit”. I would have been honored to have had his work appear in JARS.
My very deepest condolences to his family and friends.
“The Judgment Age”… or maybe, the “Snap-Judgment
Age”… either way, Pastis is just touching upon a very touchy subject.
In my ongoing Facebook engagement with my very dear friend Ryan Neugebauer, the discussion turned to these touchy subjects—to issues of social justice, cancel culture, the limits of comedy, and the effects of the 2020 riots in the wake of the murder of George Floyd.
As Notablog readers know, I’ve addressed many of these issues before in my own Notablog posts. See, for example, my discussion of the Floyd murder—and its aftermath (“America: On Wounded Knee”), my examination of the attack on statues and monuments (“On Statues, Sledgehammers, and Scalpels”), and my exploration of the commonality between Rand’s view of racism and Critical Race Theory (“Ravitch, Rand, and CRT: The Ominous Parallels?”).
A professional psychotherapist, Ryan comes from a dialectical left-libertarian perspective. In a very personal, wide-ranging Facebook post, Ryan grappled with many of the issues mentioned above. That post is not public, but is worthy of a larger audience, in my view, for the thoughtful compassion it exhibits and advocates. Here’s what Ryan had to say:
***
This should be prefaced by the fact that
all of my positions are constantly evolving, so what I am going to write is not
the final word on anything (nor should it be). I welcome all helpful, critical
feedback.
Where to start? It’s difficult because
there’s so much in all of this and so many people feel very strongly
about where they stand on these issues. So, I think it might be helpful to
start elementary by discussing a foundation for handling any issue, social
justice or not.
My foundation is a “Dialectical
Left-Libertarian” one. The dialectical part is based in Chris Matthew Sciabarra‘s “dialectical
libertarianism”, where he conceptualizes dialectics as “the art of
context keeping”. In a 2005 article of his for the
Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), he states: “If one’s aim is to
resolve a specific social problem, one must look to the larger context within
which that problem is manifested, and without which it would not exist.” Kevin Carson, in further describing Sciabarra’s
approach, states that: “Individual parts receive their character from the
whole of which they are a part, and from their function within that whole.”
Despite my differences with him—I’m not as much of a free-market propertarian and not big on the “nonaggression” principle—I love Gary Chartier‘s description of the “Left-Libertarian” here. Wikipedia describes it as “a political philosophy and type of libertarianism that stresses both individual freedom and social equality.” That Wikipedia article mentions Anthony Gregory and says that: “Gregory describes left-libertarianism as maintaining interest in personal freedom, having sympathy for egalitarianism and opposing social hierarchy, preferring a liberal lifestyle, opposing big business and having a New Left opposition to imperialism and war.” Ultimately, the Left-Libertarian framework has a concern with social authoritarianism, whether from government or culture or both, and a concern with economic injustice and dependence on wage labor relations. The core concern is with individual freedom & flourishing.
Now that I have sketched out that
foundation, I would like to talk about an important communication concern.
Whenever you are discussing issues with someone who disagrees or who holds a
very different framework than you do, you have to “know your
audience”. You have to get in touch with their concerns and learn how to
frame your responses in a way that speaks to those concerns. You don’t want to
be dismissive and you don’t want to get them wrong. Otherwise, you will
probably do a lot of talking past each other or find yourself in tense and
hostile space. Therefore, if you are a Leftist talking to a typical American
Conservative, you have to address their concerns with societal stability,
government overreach, and family values. If you are a Conservative talking with
a typical present-day Leftist, you have to address their concerns with social
equality, economic justice, and environmental protection. If you are instead
interested in beating these people over the head with how right you are and how
trivial their concerns are, you will have ended any hope for reaching them.
“Social justice is a communal effort dedicated to creating and sustaining a fair and equal society in which each person and all groups are valued and affirmed. It encompasses efforts to end systemic violence and racism and all systems that devalue the dignity and humanity of any person. It recognizes that the legacy of past injustices remains all around us, so therefore promotes efforts to empower individual and communal action in support of restorative justice and the full implementation of human and civil rights”.
I feel like that’s a difficult thing to oppose for most people. You may see differences on the specifics, but at least the spirit of it is hard to oppose for most. Personally, I am absolutely committed to this conception of social justice.
In contrast, there are people called
“social justice warriors” (SJWs) or “woke” individuals,
more often used in a pejorative sense these days (though some own one or both
of these terms in a positive sense). A Wikipedia entry on the
matter describes social justice warrior as “a pejorative term and internet
meme used for an individual who promotes socially progressive, left-wing and
liberal views, including feminism, civil rights, gay and transgender rights,
identity politics, political correctness and multiculturalism”. That’s a
mouthful and not very helpful. On that description alone, I would count for a
significant chunk of it (I take issue with the varying ways “identity
politics” and “political correctness” get used though). In regard
to “woke”, one article states:
“The dictionary defines it as ‘originally: well-informed, up-to-date. Now
chiefly: alert to racial or social discrimination and injustice’.” That article
goes on to say: “It has become a common term of derision among some who
oppose the movements it is associated with, or believe the issues are
exaggerated. It is sometimes used to mock or infantilise supporters of those
movements”. This gets at the key point of all of this: application.
Two people could both advocate strongly
for social justice but take very different approaches to it. When people
are derided as “SJWs” or “woke”, it is sometimes
used to indicate the degree of aggressiveness or rigidity surrounding their
advocacy for social justice. And to be fair, there is no shortage of examples
of people who advocate for social justice in the lousiest of ways. You have
people (taken from my own personal interactions) who say ridiculous things like
“science is white male supremacy” or “the only legitimate
pronouns are they/them” or “all Trump supporters are fascists”,
etc. They often make very extreme or harsh claims that don’t stand up to the
slightest of scrutiny. When they get pushback, they often get even more aggressive
and dogmatic. Much like very dogmatic religious individuals. I will say without
hesitation that I don’t defend these approaches and find them counterproductive
to social justice efforts. Putting aside their inaccuracies or foolishness,
they push people away from seriously important causes. Therefore, a Dialectical
Left-Libertarian approach would want to find ways to communicate effectively
with others and ensure that any actions are not harming the push towards
greater freedom and flourishing for all.
And here we get to “cancel
culture”. First, we must point out that “cancel culture” to the
degree that it exists, happens on both the right-wing and left-wing.
McCarthyism was institutional cancel culture from the Right in a very extreme
way that present-day cancel culture accusations can’t put a candle to,
especially with the “wild west” of the World Wide Web at our
fingertips. Just watch the movie “Trumbo” (2015) to see how bad
it got in one area: cinema. That said, it is more often discussed in
association with the Progressive Left these days, so we will focus on its
widespread association today. Dictionary.com
describes it as “the popular practice of withdrawing support for (canceling)
public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered
objectionable or offensive. Cancel culture is generally discussed as being
performed on social media in the form of group shaming”. It has more
broadly been associated with shouting down speakers, physically shutting down
events, getting speakers cancelled from universities, and preventing certain
media or materials from being consumed. This topic overlaps with the topic of
“comedy” mentioned above.
From a Dialectical Left-Libertarian
perspective, one should be concerned with how the things associated with
“cancel culture” aid or curtail the project of increasing freedom
& flourishing for all. Some actions are perfectly legitimate, such as
boycotting when harmful actions are done. That signals that we want the
boycotted to do better and potentially to do restitution before we are to
support them in any sense again (if at all). However, shutting down speakers
and banning books I am much less comfortable with. This more often than not
leads to negative pushback and people seeking out or defending the shutdown or
banned entities more. In my opinion, this happened with the awful Milo Yiannopoulos. The aggressive
demonstrations against him drew more attention than his talks could on their
own. It was the highlighting of his comments on adult sexual relationships with
13-year-olds that led to everyone distancing from him and him losing his
limelight. You rarely hear from him today (please let’s keep it that way!).
Nonetheless, most people I have spoken with across the political spectrum have
been uncomfortable with a lot of these previously mentioned “cancel culture”
tactics. They may support the underlying causes and some specific
implementations of the various tactics, but they don’t like the normalization
of the tactics against everything perceived as wrong or offensive. Maybe there
are times when stopping someone’s speech is necessary, especially without
question when it treads into dangerous territory of inciting violence. However,
it’s hardly clear that it should be something we are comfortable with
normalizing.
When it comes to comedy, I can’t help but
think about this George Carlin interview
[YouTube link]. He talks about the importance of comedy targeting people in
power and those that abuse others. He appears to have a concern with those who
target the marginalized in society, even if he wouldn’t want to ban any comic’s
ability to make such jokes. However, there is an ethical question regarding
when comedy can “go too far”. On this question, I mentioned in a
recent Facebook livestream that I laughed very hard at Lisa Lampanelli’s comedy routines [YouTube
link]. They were very offensive without question. And her packed, very
diverse audiences were always laughing very hard.
However, in the chat section of the livestream, I responded to a dear friend by saying: “On the one hand, few of us can deny that we find her comedy hilarious. People of all backgrounds in her very diverse audiences were on the floor. On the other hand, there does seem to be a limit of ‘going too far’, but that’s going to vary with each person and their values. So, what’s the way forward? A messy, difficult one that probably has no absolute standards.”
So, in short, I don’t know what the reasonable limits of comedy are. I imagine the answer isn’t “everything is permitted” or “nothing offensive can be permitted”. If that’s the case, and we can’t fall back on simple standards of condoning everything or condemning anything offensive, then we have to make the tough calls, risk being inconsistent or wrong, or, in dialectical fashion, look at the context and see that something may not be right under one context rather than another. But I won’t claim to know where to come down on everything. I just know that I reject the rigid extremes here. Check out one approach to this subject by George Carlin [YouTube link; especially 9:42 to 11:50). I have issues with it, but I still like hearing his perspective as a comedian who was sensitive to these issues. Just like me, he doesn’t get the final word.
You might ask: What should we do about
all of this? Well, that’s easier said than done. And I am not going to claim to
have all the answers here. However, I think we have an obligation to stand up
for those who are oppressed and should not remain silent just because it is
easier or more comfortable. I think we should organize and seek to increase
inclusivity and justice in our culture and governance institutions. We should
have more than deconstruction and disruption. We need a positive way forward.
We need an opening of society. No such opening will come without significant changes
to our society, including, importantly, to the economy. Supporting gay marriage
and transgender inclusivity in schools isn’t going to help the homeless gay or
transgender individual. Those things matter but they are not the only things
that matter. At the end of the day, unless we start having more open and honest
conversations about these matters, rather than avoiding discussing them (common
with the right-wing) or shutting down anyone who doesn’t measure up to peak SJW
performance (common with the Progressive Left), we will not make the progress
we want on these various important issues.
What about the 2020 demonstrations and riots following the killing of George Floyd by police? First, let us point out that the killing of George Floyd took place in May, just two months after the COVID pandemic took off in the United States. So much of society shut down, many had died or were dying with COVID, people were out-of-work with little to do, finances were rough, tensions were high, we were in a heavily divided election year, and had a president who played on the discord for his own gain. Whew! That’s a lot! This was far from the first wrongful killing of an African American man by US police. But it was the first one that gained major attention post-pandemic. Once it happened, the long history of anger and frustration surrounding this ongoing problem with police erupted into mass protests and riots across the country. My knee-jerk reaction was to come out in full support of anything fighting against this despicable institution. However, I dialogued with a lot of people who disagreed, including African Americans themselves. Several pointed out the harm it caused to so many minority neighborhoods. It’s one thing to protest, demonstrate, and disrupt powerful institutions (like Wall Street and the police). It’s another to burn down and destroy small businesses, the local pharmacy, and homes.
Some may say this is the price of activism and standing up for what is right. I’m not so sure that’s the case. I wouldn’t disagree that it is the price of a very immoral and bankrupt system. But it’s true that once people take to the streets en masse, you often get people who take advantage of the disruption to cause reckless damage with little concern for the lives and well-being of others. Most protesters and most people were not in support of such destruction. An important point is that we should be more angry with the cause of the discord than the discord itself. In contrast, the reactionary who is fine with things being as they are gets more upset with the discord. The reactionary would just love for everyone to go home or protest in ineffective ways that don’t stress the system and incentivize it to change for the better. I certainly don’t want to come across as defending that. However, I think we need to do better than raising our fists and getting excited over watching the local pharmacy burning to the ground. I reject the idea that we must defend every action that happened during the summer of 2020. I also reject the idea that that was the most effective way to address these matters. Regardless, I also know that such social upheavel is difficult to manage or plan ahead for, so we should put more of our resources and thinking towards making our society better so that we don’t warrant such upheaval in the first place. My Dialectical Left-Libertarian approach applied to the 2020 George Floyd protests/riots would want to ensure that any actions were in line with increasing freedom & flourishing for all, especially those most marginalized. If a given tactic or action leads to the destruction of the very lives and neighborhoods that we seek to strengthen and empower, then something is very wrong.
My last point applies to all these topics. There is a real problem with forgiveness, compassion, and flexible thinking in many social justice circles. Though I have hit on the dogmatism and rigidity already before, it is necessary to bring it up again because it is linked with an increased difficulty with forgiveness and compassion. Many people in these circles become so charged, rigid, and intense, that they start to treat others who fall short of their views with callousness, indifference, and aggression. You could be largely in line with them on most things—but fall short anywhere (how dare you, imperfect human!) and get prepared to be cancelled, attacked, smeared, and thrown away without a moment’s thought! We need to distance ourselves from some people or get them out of our lives—especially when they are actively hostile and don’t care. It’s not our responsibility to engage and try to “reform” everyone. But people like the ones being addressed here go to such extremes. They tend to lack compassion for others and look for things to condemn them for with no forgiveness on the horizon. That’s a toxic phenomenon that has no potential for building a just world. If we can’t forgive and show compassion, we fall into permanent war with nearly everyone. Permanent war is not preferable or sustainable, and it doesn’t have seeds for building a free and flourishing society for all. So, if we are to advocate for social justice, we are going to need to get in touch with compassion and forgiveness. If we don’t, we won’t get social justice. Instead, we will get social isolation and decline.
Like I have said many times at this
point, this is not my final word or the final word on any of
these matters. However, I wanted to cover these various contentious issues and
find a way to apply my Dialectical Left-Libertarian approach to them. Let’s
continue the project of “context-keeping” for freedom &
flourishing together by continuing to dialogue and finding out better ways to
approach very difficult issues and topics.
And don’t forget! You (which includes me) most likely didn’t always hold the views you do now. You most likely didn’t always advocate for social justice for all. You most likely suffered (and maybe continue to suffer) from serious ideological blindspots. Before you beat people down with the social justice stick, think instead about the compassion and support you would have liked to have had during a previous stage of your life. Then attempt to give that to the person in need. If they reject it and get hostile, move along. At least you tried rather than writing them off. And who knows, maybe a social justice seed was still planted and will sprout down the road.
***
In the Facebook thread that followed, I stated:
I
am so very impressed with the careful way in which you laid out your case, and
even more impressed with the ways in which you have applied the whole notion of
context-keeping, so essential to dialectical thinking, to the process of
exposition. If people cannot articulate their views in ways that even attempt
to “reach across the divide”, they will forever be speaking in an
echo chamber. And if they surround themselves with nobody but people who think
likewise, they will find themselves caught up in the righteousness of their
ideas without any concern for how those ideas are to be implemented in a
pluralistic society. In other words, people need to exhibit the very charitable
and compassionate ideals they claim to extol in the communicative process. If
folks can’t even do that, then they are likely never to achieve those
charitable, compassionate, or just ideals. To “know your audience”,
as you put it, is essential, therefore, not only to the ability to communicate,
but also essential to effectively making your point.
I also think that it is important to
note, as you do so clearly, how we all need to have active minds that are open
to our own self-acknowledgement of an evolution in our thinking—intellectually,
psychologically, and emotionally.
I cannot take issue with anything you’ve said above. A job so very well done. It does not solve every problem—nor is it intended to—and if it leads to “pushback”, so be it. And if that “pushback” only goes to prove the points you have made (something that I’ve seen in threads on my own Timeline), so be it. It is just refreshing to see honesty, self-awareness, and compassion shedding light on topics that too often generate heat. …
Since this is a very touchy subject, there are many people who are literally afraid to discuss this issue; hence, they engage in the self-censorship of silence. And that, perhaps, is the greatest casualty of the phenomena that you so bravely address.
Since I’ve devoted so much space to
Ryan’s post, I’ll let him have the last word here:
That’s
a very fair point. To speak positively about social justice in most right-wing
spaces gets you hit with nasty comments, accusations, and demands that you
answer for every extreme taken by someone in the name of social justice. To
speak critically about social justice in most left-wing spaces gets you
cancelled, accused of being a fascist or racist, told you are simply speaking
from a place of privilege, or some other dismissive or harsh response. Very
unfortunate. Maybe we can work towards undoing that with more of these type
discussions. ❤
Not many people know of yet another side to Eric. His “secret” was safe with me—until now. Check him out tonight with the band Soy, which will run a live show, taped on January 2, 2022. He is a roaring lion on stage! It’s at 7 pm (ET) tonight! Don’t miss it!
At 40, Franz Kafka (1883-1924), who never married and had no children, walked through the park in Berlin when he met a girl who was crying because she had lost her favourite doll. She and Kafka searched for the doll unsuccessfully.
Kafka told her to meet him there the next day and they would come back to look for her.
The next day, when they had not yet found the doll, Kafka gave the girl a letter “written” by the doll saying “please don’t cry. I took a trip to see the world. I will write to you about my adventures.”
Thus began a story which continued until the end of Kafka’s life.
During their meetings, Kafka read the letters of the doll carefully written with adventures and conversations that the girl found adorable.
Finally, Kafka brought back the doll (he bought one).
“It doesn’t look like my doll at all,” said the girl. Kafka handed her another letter in which the doll wrote: “my travels have changed me.” The little girl hugged the new doll and brought her happily home.
A year later Kafka died.
Many years later, the now-adult girl found a letter inside the doll. In the tiny letter signed by Kafka it was written:
“Everything you love will probably be lost, but in the end, love will return in another way.”
Today, I learned of the passing of Dr. Hiromi Shinya, who died in Tokyo, Japan on December 9, 2021. Dr. Shinya was a pioneer of colonoscopic techniques, the inventor of the electrosurgical polypectomy snare, which allowed for the removal of colon polyps without the need for invasive surgery. This is a deeply personal loss, as I will explain.
As Wikipedia tells us:
Hiromi Shinya was born [on March 6,] 1935 in the city of Yanagawa in Fukuoka Prefecture, Japan. … From a young age, his mother … encouraged him to earn a medical degree and pursue medicine in the United States. He graduated from Juntendo University School of Medicine in 1960. He then applied with nine hundred other candidates for one of fourteen openings for interns at the United States Naval Hospital in Yokosuka. Passage of the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates examination was required for the program, necessitating a high degree of English fluency, so he “spent a lot of time going to American movies” to prepare. He married Miyoko Mogi on March 6, 1963. She was a nurse on the Yokosuka Naval base. She graduated from Tokyo University nursing school.
Following his internship, Dr. Shinya would go on to complete a surgical residency at Beth Israel Medical Center, becoming involved in a revolutionary new technique in gastrointestinal medicine: endoscopic and colonoscopic procedures. From Wikipedia:
Shinya began developing colonoscopic techniques with an esophagoscope from Olympus Optical Co., Ltd.. The instrument was a short fiberscope with a two-way maneuverable tip and was designed for use on the esophagus, but with it, Shinya was able to reach the splenic flexure—the first bend in the colon—about 50% of the time. While other doctors were concurrently developing colonoscopic techniques, most of them practiced a two-person technique, with one person controlling the direction of the tip while the other controlled insertion. Shinya was in the minority who rejected this procedure, preferring to develop methods which allowed one endoscopist to perform colonoscopy reliably. As a result, “many and probably most of the fundamental principles of the procedure were developed by Dr. Shinya”. By the beginning of 1969, Olympus had introduced several iterations of dedicated colonoscopes, and Shinya was able to reach the cecum—located at the end of the colon—in 90% of his patients. Shinya’s other major contribution to colonoscopy was the invention of the electrosurgical polypectomy snare, known as the “Shinya snare” with the support of Olympus employee Hiroshi Ichikawa. Even before the results of the National Polyp Study linked colon polyps to colon cancer, Shinya instinctively “thought the polyp was the forerunner of cancer and that removing these polyps could reduce the risk of cancer”. Since polyp removal accounted for 30% of the colon surgery of the day, Shinya’s primary focus from his first experiences with colonoscopy was a noninvasive method of performing polypectomy. On January 8, 1969, he and Hiroshi Ichikawa sketched out the first plans for a snare attached to the end of a colonoscope that would allow for easy removal of polyps during colonoscopy. … Shinya … performed the first colonoscopic electrosurgical snare polypectomy in September 1969. In 1970, he delivered the first report of the procedure to the New York Surgical Society, and in May 1971 presented his experiences to the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.
This development made Shinya famous worldwide. There was immediate demand for his procedure, with his performing 20 colonoscopies a day. To date, he has performed approximately 370,000 colonoscopies and given nearly 300 live demonstrations of the technique. Polypectomy has gone on to surpass “all other endoscopic therapeutic procedures in terms of numbers performed” and “impacts the lives of millions of people throughout the world.” According to Michael Sivak Jr., it is the most important achievement in gastrointestinal endoscopy.
I can testify personally to the greatness of this man. I spent the bulk of my childhood deathly sick, and despite countless tests from scores of doctors, not a single doctor could come up with a diagnosis for the extreme intestinal symptoms I was experiencing—even as I was, essentially, withering away. By the time I was 13 years old, I was around 60 lbs.
Only my family doctor, Dr. Harry Karounos, was convinced—after performing a GI series in his own office (yes, they did that back then)—that it might be suppression of the duodenum caused by the Superior Mesenteric Artery. There was no way to get confirmation of this extremely rare condition known as Superior Mesenteric Artery Syndrome, a condition not clinically described until 1861, and not fully defined until 1927. There had only been a reported 400 congenital cases of SMAS in the literature (other acute cases related to body casts, have been diagnosed since, including one related to the spinal injury suffered by Christopher Reeve). The condition is so rare that it wasn’t until 2017 that a not-for-profit organization was founded to heighten awareness of it: Superior Mesenteric Artery Syndrome Research Awareness Support. In October of that same year, only “The Good Doctor”, in the second episode of its first season, featured a story in which a young girl nearly dies from it.
Back in 1973, we were extremely fortunate to have learned of the revolutionary new techniques in endoscopic medicine being performed by Dr. Shinya. We were able to schedule an esaphagogastroduodenoscopy, which Dr. Shinya performed on me, in his office, under sedation. In 20-30 minutes, Dr. Shinya provided a conclusive SMAS diagnosis. A few months later, on April 21, 1974, at Methodist Hospital, in Brooklyn—the hospital in which I was born in 1960—I was reborn, when Dr. Joseph Bochetto performed a major surgical duodenojejunostomy, by-passing the obstructed third and fourth portions of the duodenum. (There were no laproscopic surgical techniques available at the time.)
In the years since, I developed quite a few complications due to the by-pass surgery. I’ve had 60+ procedures since, all in some way related to the condition and its postoperative side effects. I discussed this condition in a Folks interview back in 2018, and in Notablog entries in January 2018 related to it.
But I am alive—and flourishing—to talk about. I have lived a happy, loving, and productive life, and I simply would not be here if it were not for Dr. Shinya. I mourn his passing, but I celebrate his life. He remains one of the greatest healers to have ever graced this planet. He was also a gentle man, a beautiful soul who was a source of enormous comfort—and hope—anytime you were in his caring presence.
There is an age-restricted video of Dr. Shinya performing a colonoscopy (not for the faint of heart) on YouTube; at his side in the video is his protégé, my current doctor: Dr. Mark Cwern. I thank Dr. Shinya not only for having saved my life, but for having provided me with the gift of Dr. Cwern, who has been by my side for many years, a man who has carried on the legacy of Dr. Shinya with enormous integrity and kindness.
Unfortunately, I have not found a single obituary to mark the passing of this giant in the field of gastrointestinal medicine. To his family, friends, and colleagues, I offer my deepest condolences. To the hundreds of thousands of people whose lives he personally saved, to the many millions of people whose lives have been saved due to the enormous contributions he has made, I dedicate this tribute. Thank you, dearest doctor, for all that you did for me. Rest in peace.
