This blog printed on 100% recycled electrons.
A key component of Student Congress is parliamentary procedure, so when we hold our "StuCo" contests every March and April, I always find myself paging through Robert's Rules of Order, (Newly Revised), that venerable manual of parliamentary procedure first created by America's General Henry M. Robert in the 1870s. This year, between reviews of actual rules, I paged through the historical introduction (see the 10th Edition, Perseus: Cambridge, MA, 2000), which notes that Robert, who believed firmly in vigorous debate and majority rule, was well known for guiding the various boards he chaired toward unanimous votes and reports. "This was not the contradiction that it may at first seem," says the Introduction:
Robert was surely aware of the early evolutionary development of parliamentary procedure in the English House of Lords resulting in a movement from "consensus," in its original sense of unanimous agreement, toward a decision by majority vote as we know it today. This evolution came about from a recognition that a requirement of unanimity or near unanimity can become a form of tyranny in itself. In an assembly that tries to make such a requirement the norm, a variety of misguided feelings -- reluctance to be seen as opposing the leadership, a notion that causing controversy will be frowned upon, fear of seeming an obstacle to unity -- can easily lead to decisions being taken with a pseudoconsensus which in reality implies elements of default, which satisfies no one, and for which no one really assumes responsibility. Robert saw, on the other hand, that the evolution of majority vote in tandem with lucid and clarifying debate -- resulting in a decision representing the view of the deliberate majority -- far more clearly ferrets out and demonstrates the will of an assembly. It is through the application of genuine persuasion and parliamentary technique that General Robert was able to achieve decisions in meetings he led which were so free of divisiveness within the group.
Such is the lesson students learn every day in my classroom and every weekend at speech contests. I'm so used to engaging in debate and pushing students to do the same that I'm always surprised to find people afraid to speak up in disagreement with various public sentiments. I wonder -- is the tyranny of unanimity part of the fear of speaking up that I hear from a number of my fellow Madisonites?
I have an essay on local fear in the works. The central question I'm chewing on -- and which I pose with genuine eagerness and curiosity to my readers now -- is this: What are we afraid of? What scares Madisonites away from participating in open public debate? Robert wasn't afraid of open debate. He spent a lifetime composing rules that would facilitate productive debate, rules now that my own students study assiduously during the first month of spring. We voters should all be so dedicated to open, honest public discourse.
I think the people in Madison are afraid to speak up on issues for a variety of reasons. Some people just don't like controversy or are are afraid of what other people will think of them. And I guess that includes me many times. I'm posting relatively anonymously, using a pseudonym to differentiate me from the other anonymous posters here. On the gym issue I'm not afraid to speak out though but still use a nom de plume (? sp) so my comments aren't automatically taken in a certain way because of name.
ReplyDeleteEnough of me. I've heard many comments that people who have kids or grandkids in school in Madison are afraid to say anything because of fear of retribution against said kids/grandkids (from other students maybe, from teachers in the way of grading maybe, from coaches in the way of affecting their ability to participate or play in sports or other activities). However, they aren't afraid to speak out with their anonymous vote.
Teachers/coaches do have the ability to grade according to whether the student has done something to irritate said teacher/coach. I know an instance where a semester grade was lowered from an A to a B because said student dropped out of a sport. (When the student asked the teacher the reason for the B, the teacher flat out told him this reason; although the student knew he deserved the A and should have pursued the matter, he didn't).
Business owners may be afraid to speak up for fear of their opinions hurting their business, which would affect their ability to earn a living.
I no longer have kids in school and don't have a business that could be negatively impacted so am free to state an opinion for those who don't feel so free to do so. I know some don't like it, but there are many others who quietly agree and some who unobtrusively tell me so.
I agree it would be nice to have a public debate. We kind of did during the very first opt out discussions and I think those discussions did influence some decisions at the time, or at least make the school board and the community think.
In my opinion the board does not want to hear differing views (as evidenced by downright rudeness this time when asked to consider the impact of this bond issue). They think they know best and heaven forbid that someone else might have an idea that could conceivably help them achieve their objective with less controversy. I know the gym committee did not want to hear any discussion about more fair ways to fund this gym.
Until you have broader representation on the school board and on any committee that wants to spend public money, there probably won't be any change in their policy of doing things eiher.
BTW Corey, did Madison school district have any representatives at those contests you mentioned here?
Hey, nonnie!
ReplyDeleteThank you for the comments on the fear issue. The hesitance on the part of others to speak out makes it hard for us to really work together as a community. If we don't respect each other enouh to listen to opposing opinions without threatening retribution -- or if we are so suspicious of each other that we think others will take retribution against us for voicing opposing opinions -- then we have a long way to go to become a truly strong community.
Some will take great umbrage at the above statement. I don't mean to suggest that Madison is wholly dysfunctional and filled with meanies and thugs and other characters much worse than mere cynics and tightwads (sorry, but that comment really stuck with me -- I'm still waiting for that anonymous commenter to explain the difference between a tightwad and someone who just can't afford a tax increase). MDL runs plenty of letters to the editor offering thanks for support for various charitable causes and saved kittens.
But when it comes to politics, and certainly when it comes to the school, that fear starts cropping up, and civil discourse dwindles. As a teacher in this district from 1998 to 2001 and as a taxpayer before and since, on matters of policy, opt-outs, building issues, what-have-you, I join a noisy handful who will make public statements to a great number of people who seem convinced that speaking up will only lead to big trouble.
Nonnie offers several possible justifiations for that fear. Nonnie him/herself suggests that using a nom de plume (good French, nonnie!) keeps people from automatically taking his/her words a certain way because of who he/she is. There is a some merit to that argument: if people are going to respond to arguments in an ad hominem fashion ("Oh, she's just saying that because she's mad her kid got cut from the team," or "He's just saying that because he's a crotchety old man"), then maybe we should hear more anonymous arguments which people will have to evaluatepurely on the merits rather than the source.
Still, I'd rather we get to the point where we can respectfully acknowledge the source of an argument, then concentrate on discussion the argument's merits without ever descending into personal attacks. I promote my views here and trust my neighbors not to dump garbage on my lawn or jack up the prices they charge me at Jubilee and Radio Shack.
Fear of retribution against kids at school -- now that's a tough one to overcome. If such fear exists, it demonstrates a disturbing lack of confidence in the professionalism of our teachers. Maybe that's why teacher salaries are so low in this state: deep down, a big chunk of the population, including the folks serving in government, just don't trust teachers.
Why shouldn't we trust our teachers, though? If we really didn't trust them, we'd all be home-schooling.
This English teacher can tell you that teachers have a lot more to be afraid of than parents. I don't accept the idea that teachers/coaches "have the ability to grade according to whether the student has done something to irritate said teacher/coach." Teachers have document and be ready to justify objectively every grade. If students and their parents feel grades are not being determined by objective standards, they can make life plenty hot for the teacher at conferences and through the formal complaint procedure. It takes some effort to pursue such matters, but believe me, it will take just as much effort, if not more, from the teacher. Teachers are as busy and as uneager for trouble as anyone else. It's not hard to hold them accountable. But again, that takes the hard work of putting your name to a formal complaint and taking teachers (or anyone who is genuinely acting unjustly, not just disagreeably) to task through the channels established by policy rather than just disgruntled whispers around town.
Fear, civil discourse, taking arguments personally -- this is a big topic area, and an important one. I'd like everyone to keep thinking about it. I'm sure it will continue to come up. I welcome further comments, anonymous and otherwise, here online or in private communication, on the discursive climate of Madison and our sense of community and respect for each other.
BTW, nonnie, yes, Madison HS did have representatives at State Student Congress this weekend in Pierre. Coach Nills brought (I think) five students. If I remember correctly, one ranked as first alternate to Nationals.
ReplyDelete"Business owners may be afraid to speak up for fear of their opinions hurting their business, which would affect their ability to earn a living."
ReplyDeleteThis one strikes me as being particularly relevant. I happen to know of a certain professional working in Madison (and wanting some day to retire), who is a very opinionated person. However, he has learned to guard his mouth in public because his ability to pay his debts rests on not offending his current patients. If the gym proposal passed, his property taxes might go up $500 a year. But if he offends one family, he loses more than that.
This is the reality of a small town. The worst business mistake of his life was not in any way related to his ability to assess eyeballs... it was when he switched from the Methodist church to the Lutheran church. A close second was expressing a differing opinion with the owner of a car dealership… whose employees all decided it was time to try the other optometrist in town. In both cases, I thought he did the right thing...
The truth is... and it's a truth that perhaps you are not in a position to observe quite as directly... that there are only a few small-town citizens who act rationally. Larger towns afford a veil of anonymity where you can speak your mind and not fear particular grudges coming back to haunt you. A larger town also provides one with a constant flux of new patients... even if you have a malpractice suit in the Twin Cities, a large enough market won't know about it and still fill your daily schedule. (Which is an example of large-town citizens being irrational.) Being a successful professional in a small town requires keeping your name out of the rumor mill, and your opinions away from the latest little controversy. You never gain patients by taking sides, you can only lose them.
So I submit, therefore, that there is a cost-benefit advantage and that staying silent might even be the more rational choice. Nonnie went on to offer many other cost-benefit advantages to those who may not own their own business, and I would think that you yourself might remember how your public opinions found disfavor with the public opinion and cost you your job about 6 years ago. (And there again, I thought you were in the right...)
Moreover, the culprit may not be fear as much as apathy. "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute talk with the average voter." Votes are rarely cast by monomaniacs who are entirely certain of their decisions. I know of one who was going to vote for Thune because "he's handsome." I challenged that reasoning, and she ended up voting for Tim Johnson instead... for no apparent reason (maybe a sympathy vote because he's uglier?). I doubt that many voters were either passionately for or against the gym proposal... they could see the benefit of having lower taxes, and they could see the benefit of having a better gym. I also doubt that many voters are passionate about whether or not to eat a boiled egg from the little end or the big end. Some may argue with the certainty of a monomaniac if their prejudices color the issue as black and white... and we are sure to find those sorts on both sides. Darrin Namken was no less certain than you were, but his prejudices were just the opposite. He finds community value in the drama of public sports, the work ethic needed to hone a skill, the balance of individual work against teamwork, respect for rules and fair-play, loyalty to your fellow citizens, a dash of patriotism, and the chummy camaraderie among rich and poor, saints and sinners, old and young all rooting for the same outcome. These are all important values to foster in Madison... I hope that every citizen in America identifies with them. In your mind, it's more important to showcase adolescents reciting lines you wrote, painting pictures that have no relationship to anything in nature, groaning out flat notes on a tuba, and developing the skills to someday be a lawyer, used-car salesman, or politician. Of course there is value to literature and critical thinking, just as there is value in work ethic and teamwork… but I doubt that you will have a successful fund-raising drive for forensics and the arts if you don’t show a willingness to help them meet their values. Small-town citizens are extremely grudging… there are still members of Trinity who are upset over the organ the church bought in the 80s.
Consider also one further observation. Which of your students are the most likely to give you the intellectual stimulation that you want? The honor roll students. Now where do those students end up? Most of them out of state, and the rest are probably in Sioux Falls. I’m not saying that there aren’t some smart people in Madison, but why are those people there? Beth Knuths came to Madison because her husband inherited a large company there. Tim Tucker is in Madison because Lake County needs a judge… he just happens to be a really good one. Wayne Wetzbarger, to fill a vacancy at the hospital. It seems as though the “intellectuals” are there mostly by accident… they aren’t crashing the city gates because of Madison’s reputation as the modern Alexandria. If 5% of students are on the honor roll, and only 25% of those stay in state, and 90% of those go to the Sioux Falls area… it leaves you with only a fraction of a fraction. I’m in Sioux Falls and wishing the likes of Phil Assmus, Michael Reese, Steve White, Toby Uecker, Xin Wang, and Lori Mack (Weismantel) hadn’t flown to greener pastures. Instead they could have stayed around to pass Sunday afternoons and late Friday nights with a lifelong conversation. But having said that, I must also say that I find a lot more stimulation (and people my age) in Sioux Falls than I did living single in Madison.
My response to you is the same as my response to the anonymous poster in the other thread:
It doesn't make sense in my mind to try to change a community where everyone else enjoys the small-town atmosphere... just move yourself and let the peaceful citizens of Madison relish their close-knit, low-crime, elderly culture.