10:30 p.m. - 2003-11-12
Decisions
My youngest and I had an interesting discussion today. He was writing a social studies essay. Now I've scanned the textbook and it has a very distinct political bias. In addition, my son showed me the "prompts" (answer) page which supplied the points that were supposed to be presented in the essay. Again with a bias that is quite unapologetic. His question? He doesn't agree with either the text in the book or the slant "suggested" in the prompts section. Does he have to write the essay expressing the opinions provided in the textbook. A lot of parents would be pragmatic and say "well it's just an exercise - compromise and get the marks - you can speak up later". Getting good marks is important, no doubt, when one can be penalized by being refused admission to a college or university because of it. The problem with that approach, however, is what you are teaching your child about integrity and expedience. Does the end justify the means? When do you start saying what you think, instead of what you think someone else wants to hear. What level of reward or punishment is the one where you start lying to others - and yourself? I told my son that if a teacher penalized him for clearly expressing his own point of view with good supporting arguments, then it was the teachers' problem if they deducted marks. It isn't an important measure to me, although it gives me the measure of the teacher. What I want him to learn is to think critically and logically for himself and to make his own choices based on that. However, I did point out that sometimes it is how a message is delivered that determines the receptivity of the reader. Ethics 101.
While we were discussing that,I was thinking of a politician I had worked with for a long time. She was passionate - and blunt - about what she thought was in the best interests of children and families in the city. I cherished that openness even when I didn't agree or support her stance, because you knew she was speaking the truth as she knew and felt it. In addition, she was always open to discussion and she knew how to work out compromises where that was important. Because of her honesty, her leadership of community opinion and action was quite great. She became the focus of a truly virulent smear campaign/character assassination when a group, who wanted to take over the public education system, found they couldn't bully her into submission. The group? A coalition of fundamentalist christians who wanted to dominate curriculum decisions, despite the fact that the majority of parents with children in the public system actively opposed the idea. The group opted to take another volatile issue and link it to their drive for control. At a public meeting held in one of their facilities, they attacked this trustee mercilessly and with no regard to the truth. I took one of the wives of the pastors aside and asked her how they could justify lying about the person and the issues, especially doing that to a person who had dedicated decades of their life to improving conditions and trying to protect all the children the schools served. The woman responded that they were well aware of all the good that the trustee had done, but that they were fighting for the "greater" cause, in the name of their god, and so the end justified the means. I sent her a note the next day talking about the history of the crucifixtion. Herod had decided to sacrifice one lowly teacher, so that the government of the day wouldn't come down on the population and Pontius Pilate washed his hands of it, because he didn't want to battle the religious hierarchy of the time over a single man. The end justified their means too. I suggested she look in her mirror. Funny thing - the campaign against the trustee stopped shortly after. Sometimes one has to speak one's piece regardless of the anticipated reception or response to what you say.
I spent most of the day working on my election assignment. Three hours on the phone talking through changes to my maps with my liaison. That was a problem that was bottlenecking the rest of the work. I should be able to get the rest of the tasks done a lot more efficiently now. Interestingly enough, the theme of speaking up or speaking out came up again while we were chatting together trying to anticipate the probable timelines for the next series of assignments. Of course with election work, politics dominates decisions and being sensible or honest aren't always the first consideration, or any consideration sometimes. It was an interesting few hours.
�
�
