The commentary strikes at the very center of the current free speech arguments. Right now, it's become practiced as "my speech is free, but yours is invalid unless it agrees with me." Your analysis is basically a call to restore the missing elements of classical debate, which call for a dialectical approach to decision making. I cannot locate the transcript for the broadcast, but NPR host Peter Sagal struck at it when he complained that NPR required that all sides be presented, even in the case of indefensible or simply made up arguments by one side. Paraphrase: "If one person gets kicked in the crotch, NPR requires that not only the person kicked gets interviewed, but the person who kicked them. And also...the boot." No ideology or political stance is pure. All reactions to events are messy combinations of facts, motivations, emotional reactions (and sometimes trauma). Each person who reacts needs to have their say, and to have their say weighed and reacted to by another voice that is equally active, informed, and responsible. It's the only way to validate attitudes, beliefs, and values.
Your comparison of the new "To Kill a Mockingbird" play, which I haven't seen, to the original movie, that I've watched ( and the book, that I've read and recently re-read ) provides much food for thought. I'm able to easily draw a parallel between your description of the new play, the Atticus Finch character in general, and what's happening on the SCPS Board.
Those who've been paying attention to Spotsy's Board have seen the absolute mess it's become. I often hear three suggestions that concern me.
The first is that we need to replace the entire board. No, we don't. The three women who make up the minority are bending over backward to let their constituents know what's going on, what the motives seem to be, and pointing out nuances and blatant egregious behavior that the general public doesn't know or understand. These women, whose elected power has been stripped by Lisa Phelps and this board's majority, are doing their best to communicate with their constituents whom they have been left powerless to serve that the goal of this board's majority, with help from Mark Taylor, Jon Russell, and others, is to destroy our public schools in favor of privatizing them to fulfill a political agenda and promote a specific religious doctrine.
The second is that all we need is more civility on the board. This suggestion includes the assumption that the problem with the board is that meetings are too long and they need to be streamlined and made more efficient. That sounds great until you peel back the onion to the very serious core issues this division is facing. Keeping in mind the complexities of the issues that plague this public school division, the only solution for now, until the election, is to continue plowing through, even when it's tough to watch. The only other solution we have is for the three women in the minority sit down, shut up, and rubber stamp every motion and policy change introduced by Phelps and Taylor. Rubber stamping will shorten meetings. Is it what we need? Surely not.
Finally, we have the suggestion, often made in good faith by people who want a neat solution to this mess, that we just need more compromise on the board. The problem with that is that at some point moral and ethical concerns rise to the forefront. Book banning is an example. When must reasonable people ask themselves what logic and core beliefs they must disregard in order to hold the belief that has been propagated by this board's majority and its followers (along with the extremists nationwide) that most school librarians and many teachers, most of whom are neighbors, community members, and many who are themselves parents, are pedophiles whose main professional goal is to sexually groom children? At what point does memory and history remind us that banning books from school libraries because some parents don't like them will lead our society to a very dark place? At what point do we acknowledge the importance to society that students be taught real, unvarnished history? When do we stand on the belief that when even one child is marginalized or discriminated against because that child doesn't fit into the definition of "normal" that this superintendent, or these board members, or some parents who follow this extreme ideology hold, all of our children are at risk? So while compromise seems like a nice word, a kind of a "Kumbaya" and "Let's all just be friends" belief, is that what we really want? I hope not.
While it should be obvious by now to anyone paying attention to the disaster happening at 8020 River Stone Drive and in dark corners where the real decisions that impact this school division are made, we don't need Mark Taylor. Based on this article, perhaps we don't need an Atticus Finch either.
Great review of editorial intent. Fair and balanced has been discredited as a sham, so more power to you.
The UMW piece is interesting in that large organizations are too often more intent on protecting their image than serving their students. I have seen the same thing happen in City Hall. I reported five women who had been bullied by a senior staffer, but the internal investigation became a sham because the women who had been bullied had left the City to find work elsewhere. With no one to easily interview, there was no apparent internal problem. The one woman who had a really strong case, with multiple witnesses, was let go during the pandemic. She is the only local government employee in Virginia to be let go as a consequence of the pandemic, but with her gone there is no longer an internal problem. Pretty convenient.
The commentary strikes at the very center of the current free speech arguments. Right now, it's become practiced as "my speech is free, but yours is invalid unless it agrees with me." Your analysis is basically a call to restore the missing elements of classical debate, which call for a dialectical approach to decision making. I cannot locate the transcript for the broadcast, but NPR host Peter Sagal struck at it when he complained that NPR required that all sides be presented, even in the case of indefensible or simply made up arguments by one side. Paraphrase: "If one person gets kicked in the crotch, NPR requires that not only the person kicked gets interviewed, but the person who kicked them. And also...the boot." No ideology or political stance is pure. All reactions to events are messy combinations of facts, motivations, emotional reactions (and sometimes trauma). Each person who reacts needs to have their say, and to have their say weighed and reacted to by another voice that is equally active, informed, and responsible. It's the only way to validate attitudes, beliefs, and values.
Your comparison of the new "To Kill a Mockingbird" play, which I haven't seen, to the original movie, that I've watched ( and the book, that I've read and recently re-read ) provides much food for thought. I'm able to easily draw a parallel between your description of the new play, the Atticus Finch character in general, and what's happening on the SCPS Board.
Those who've been paying attention to Spotsy's Board have seen the absolute mess it's become. I often hear three suggestions that concern me.
The first is that we need to replace the entire board. No, we don't. The three women who make up the minority are bending over backward to let their constituents know what's going on, what the motives seem to be, and pointing out nuances and blatant egregious behavior that the general public doesn't know or understand. These women, whose elected power has been stripped by Lisa Phelps and this board's majority, are doing their best to communicate with their constituents whom they have been left powerless to serve that the goal of this board's majority, with help from Mark Taylor, Jon Russell, and others, is to destroy our public schools in favor of privatizing them to fulfill a political agenda and promote a specific religious doctrine.
The second is that all we need is more civility on the board. This suggestion includes the assumption that the problem with the board is that meetings are too long and they need to be streamlined and made more efficient. That sounds great until you peel back the onion to the very serious core issues this division is facing. Keeping in mind the complexities of the issues that plague this public school division, the only solution for now, until the election, is to continue plowing through, even when it's tough to watch. The only other solution we have is for the three women in the minority sit down, shut up, and rubber stamp every motion and policy change introduced by Phelps and Taylor. Rubber stamping will shorten meetings. Is it what we need? Surely not.
Finally, we have the suggestion, often made in good faith by people who want a neat solution to this mess, that we just need more compromise on the board. The problem with that is that at some point moral and ethical concerns rise to the forefront. Book banning is an example. When must reasonable people ask themselves what logic and core beliefs they must disregard in order to hold the belief that has been propagated by this board's majority and its followers (along with the extremists nationwide) that most school librarians and many teachers, most of whom are neighbors, community members, and many who are themselves parents, are pedophiles whose main professional goal is to sexually groom children? At what point does memory and history remind us that banning books from school libraries because some parents don't like them will lead our society to a very dark place? At what point do we acknowledge the importance to society that students be taught real, unvarnished history? When do we stand on the belief that when even one child is marginalized or discriminated against because that child doesn't fit into the definition of "normal" that this superintendent, or these board members, or some parents who follow this extreme ideology hold, all of our children are at risk? So while compromise seems like a nice word, a kind of a "Kumbaya" and "Let's all just be friends" belief, is that what we really want? I hope not.
While it should be obvious by now to anyone paying attention to the disaster happening at 8020 River Stone Drive and in dark corners where the real decisions that impact this school division are made, we don't need Mark Taylor. Based on this article, perhaps we don't need an Atticus Finch either.
Bravo!
Great review of editorial intent. Fair and balanced has been discredited as a sham, so more power to you.
The UMW piece is interesting in that large organizations are too often more intent on protecting their image than serving their students. I have seen the same thing happen in City Hall. I reported five women who had been bullied by a senior staffer, but the internal investigation became a sham because the women who had been bullied had left the City to find work elsewhere. With no one to easily interview, there was no apparent internal problem. The one woman who had a really strong case, with multiple witnesses, was let go during the pandemic. She is the only local government employee in Virginia to be let go as a consequence of the pandemic, but with her gone there is no longer an internal problem. Pretty convenient.
The Advance is doing good work.
Erik Nelson