AKMA’s Random Thoughts

Oh, For Crying Out Loud

Look, I’m all about disagreement. I believe disagreement constitutes the most fundamental discursive element; “agreement” is at best transitory, more often illusory. So I’m not trying to force anyone’s conscience, anyone’s hand.

But let’s give the most charitable take on this story (that John Adams called to my attention). A history teacher/academic chaplain articulates one way of looking at a contemporary controversy — and for that, the administration fires him and drives him off the property.

I haven’t read the article; there are ill-considered, inflammatory ways of tackling our contemporary sexuality headaches, and the article may have been a fiery blast of liberal ignorance. More likely, from the tone of the report, the editorial just espoused a position unpopular with the school’s donors.

Either way, the administration’s hasty convulsions reflect the unproductive kind of panic reaction that so often substitutes for deliberation and reflective response (witness Gregg Easterbrook). The ways we might deal with unwelcome talk, disagreeable perspectives, or flat-out dumb mistakes, surpass what we imagine — but we typically jerk our knee and fire, blast, purge, shout down, stifle those whom we identify as transgressors. I’m willing to insist, though, that the vast preponderance of productive, healing, educational responses fall into the unhurried, imaginative category rather than the sudden, sweep-it-out-the-door-and-under-the-carpet category. I’ll apply that claim to international relations, to theological disputes, to child-rearing and spouse-coping, to domestic politics, to parish crises.

Practice thinking or saying:

“What if I’m wrong? What would I want to have done that would command respect in retrospect?”

“How can we work our way out of this mess?”

“Granted that this happened once: how can we pattern our lives to reduce the likelihood that it’ll happen again?”

“Did you say (or do) that because you’re an unreflective bigot, or because something distracted you so that your commitment to fairness and even-handedness slipped?”

“How can we make clear that we think you’re wrong, without muscling you into submission or flight?”

Maybe the school in this story does better for philanthropic gifts by its misanthropic policies — but I’d bet that they’d come out ahead in the long run if they demonstrated a principled, firm, policy of adhering to their institutional premises while permitting disagreement. Trying to suppress dissent has a nasty way of starting revolutions.

Posted by AKMA at October 27, 2003 02:38 PM | TrackBack