In southwest Washington, this is being referred to as a “Day of Action.”
I previously shared my struggle with this particular action, and when it came time for our local to vote, I spoke in opposition of the Walk Out and voted along with 34% of my local against it.
In a democratic system, though, the majority determines the course of action. My philosophical or political disagreement with the outcome of the vote does not grant me the right to disregard it.
Sure, I could choose to just sit at home and grade my seniors’ Othello tests: 17 short-answer questions from 60 students (just over 1000 individual responses) so even if I devote a generous 30 seconds per response, just grading and giving feedback on that one assignment alone is eight hours of work. That “action” on my part, though, doesn’t contribute to any kind of larger solution. It still has to get done, though… so looks like I’ll be tossing a bit less football with my sons. Such is the choice you make when you become a teacher. I knew that going in.
So back to this:
In a democratic system, the majority determines the course of action. My philosophical or political disagreement with the outcome of the vote does not grant me the right to disregard it.
This is the message I want to communicate to voters. In a democratic system, particularly one that permits voter-generated initiatives, the decision of the voters should be upheld. Philosophical or political disagreement does not grant one the right to disregard the voice of the voter. This disregard is what is happening within factions of our legislature, and this is what I will be protesting.
Even though I disagree with the Walk Out, I want my union’s democracy to function. I want my union to be better at advocating for kids, teachers, and public education. To make it better, I have to participate. I want to serve as a model for our elected officials: doing my best to enact the will of the people rather than simply avoiding the discomfort of having to face difficult choices. The legislature is already disregarding voter voice and fundamental tenets of democracy through it’s avoidance of not only voter-approved initiatives but also their skirting of the Supreme Court mandate by attempting to take locally-approved levy monies…monies that local communities voted to use to invest in their own schools in order to close the very funding gap left by the legislature.
In my own classroom, I’ve been tight-lipped about the Walk Out or “Day of Action.” Kids want to know because it makes for good drama—teenagers love protest. Yesterday in an after-class conversation, I did briefly lay out the facts for them in order to satiate their questions; I gave as objectively as possible an overview of the timeline of voter initiatives, McCleary, the levy swap move, the talking points on either side, and I told them I voted against the Walk Out but would be participating. My goal: that they left realizing that the issue was far more complex than could be captured on a picket sign.
I still believe that today’s actions will not have the intended effect on the intended audience. (I hope to be proven wrong.) I will participate, though, not out of compliance, but to help shape the message—even if this isn’t the way I think the message will be best communicated.
agreed – if you’ll stomach the continuation of the analogy and permit me one more Mao quote (I assure you I’m not a communist 🙂 , but his perception of the nature of politics is undeniably astute) – “The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea.”
If we educators are the little fish fighting the good fight, then undeniably the community is our sea. We offend them at our peril.
Like in war, the view of the action of any one participant is tiny and possibly inconsequential, but last week I saw and talked with a whole lot more supportive community members than the contrary. I think we’re insulting their intelligence if we think they can’t understand why we choose this course of action.
I’ve been accused of offending a few people lately, but i assure the lot of them that this is not my intent. One can’t talk of politics w/o risking offense, but I’d like to think in a blog-environment like this one I can have some faith in the congeniality of the crowd. 🙂
All analogies are problematic as, by definition, no two different things are the same thing.
Yet war is an exceedingly logical way to think of any labor action.
All labor actions are political.
Mao Zedong said “Politics is war without bloodshed, but war is politics with bloodshed.” They are 2 faces of the same coin. We’re not that many generations removed from that state of nature which the philosopher summarized as “the war of all against all.”
Politics is the process whereby societies decide who gets what. Politics in our age normally than is the provenance of “please and thank you” approaches, since in polite society that usually suffices. But only a casual glance at human history bears out how painfully inadequate this approach is when confronted with blood-minded and uncompromising people.
War is what happens when one or more sides to a conflict figure they can ignore the conventions of common politics with impunity. When they can take and grab, imbued with a sense that their position and power will allow it. I submit to you that there are indeed a good many people in Olympia consumed with such arrogance.
Of course everyone is free to do as they wish, and I concede that you will participate in the political world as it pleases you. But that said, in fact, often we do NOT get choices after a democratic body has spoken. We don’t get to set speed limits as we see fit or discriminate in hiring because of our personal prejudices. We don’t get to ignore the summons of a court with impunity, nor to refuse service in time of war when the country calls. Complete freedom of choice is the same as anarchy, and as a veteran yourself, I’m sure you have respect for a chain of command.
To be sure, this labor action of the past week was hardly worthy of a comparison to a great battle. It was merely the warm work of two sets of sentries, a simple skirmish. I am deeply desirous that that will suffice, for – as a teacher of military history – I know that most horrid conflagrations have such humble starts.
I appreciate your elaboration, but I would still argue that the union is supposed to represent me and not the other way around. Mao would not be my choice for political wisdom; again, there is a difference between law and policy. War as a metaphor still overstates the relationship between educators and the government.
We really need to enlist the assistance and support of parents and the community rather than angering them with the inconvenience of a walk out.
It is rare to come across a post with comments as enlightening and thought provoking as the article. Mark, thanks for writing another great piece.
I think, Mark, that you and I are more in agreement than otherwise. Thank you for posting such a thought-provoking article. It really is a difficult situation. I keep hoping that parents and the community will become more involved; that’s what I’m working on. It feels like the legislature has heard the “same old same old” from teachers to a point where they have become deaf to us.
Kim, your union is NOT “an organization that I am forced to belong to.” You can opt out, and indeed, if you have no intention of honoring it’s democratic decisions, why WOULD you be part of it? If you don’t want to be Canadian, don’t live in Canada. 🙂
The “strikes are against the law” logic is odd – isn’t ignoring the Supreme Court illegal too? Ignoring the clear will of the people as demonstrated in democratic elections? War is of course illegal, but once one side chooses to engage in it, it leaves you little option but capitulation or response in kind.
I disagree with you on this one. Someone tried to use that very argument on me when my district voted to strike several years ago. I was accused of being “undemocratic” because I went against what the majority voted on and refused to strike. If we were enacting a law, that would be one thing, but this is a vote by an organization that I am forced to belong to. This has nothing to do with law – except that striking breaks it. The fact that this is a democracy is what actually gives me the right (and possibly the responsibility) to disagree with my association (which, thankfully, voted against a walk out) and stand up for what I believe is righteous.
I do, however, agree that this will have no impact on the intended audience. The legislature knows it’s not upholding its responsibility to education and has been reminded of this by the Washington Supreme Court. We, as teachers, have been sending messages liberally; they know how we feel. This new action, while it might send a message to the public, still won’t cause the legislature to change the budget.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not accusing others of being undemocratic. I am only talking about my own approach and perspective in this upon which to determine my own course of action. I did go out and canvas some neighborhoods (not bad) and did attend a rally (not my style, I found the rally to be a bit stomach turning… Chants and all are not what I think will represent the cause well).
I also chose to get involved despite my no vote because my primary concern had to do with the messaging approach with the community. Every opportunity I had, I spoke to groups of our union members to emphasize the importance of sending the right message (the same voter centric message I describe above). My worry was, and is, that these walkouts and sign waving protests only support the cultural perspective of teachers as lazy, whiny, greedy complainers. I wanted to do my little part to influence our local message… But my doing so does not mean that those who voted “no” and didn’t participate are somehow wrong. That is also an exercise of a democratic right… My example above is about trying to reinforce the “real” democracy being ignored in Olympia.
Those who voted “yes” on the walkout, criticized those of us who voted “no,” and then didn’t do a dang thing? That’s a different story.
Mark, I do realize you were not making accusations; I was just saying that someone else had used the same reasoning to make those accusations. I also am not comfortable at rallies and have participated in other ways.
Eric, I suppose that technically you are right, but I still have to pay the dues for that organization whether I “join” or not. I am not arguing in support of the decisions made by the legislature. Our state congress is broken. They need to fund education better. I have written emails and letters; I have made phone calls and attended town meetings. I believe they are making bad budgetary decisions and betraying the trust of the public they represent. Yes, they are breaking the law. But I’m not going use that rationalization as an excuse to do the same. I’m not sure what you mean by “honoring” a decision. Because this is a democratic republic, I have the freedom to choose my actions. I wouldn’t try to convince anyone who chose to participate that they are wrong, nor would I condemn them for participating. However, I do NOT have to do something I believe is wrong just because other people are choosing to do it. By your reasoning, if I’m a member of the Democratic party, and I voted for the legislators making these decisions, then I should just go along with their budgeting whether I agree or not. As a veteran and mother of a veteran who has seen war, I find your characterization of this argument as a such to be a bit offensive.
I do think the war imagery/analogy goes a little too far. Kim, I totally agree that exercising your right to not participate is in fact a part of a democratic system. My gut also tells me that you’ve not been passive, you’ve been active in advocating for schools and kids (and you mention yourself that you also have written letters, and otherwise tried to exert influence), so I do feel like what you are doing is an important part of the democratic process.
This whole experience has been challenging for me…trying to figure out the right way to negotiate through the action being taken. I tried to avert it by speaking against it and voting no. When the votes went the other way, I felt that personally I needed to be involved and be part of the communication to the community. I have peers that I respect greatly that voted no and chose not to participate in the activities.
My original analogy of the democracy of a union to the elected ‘real’ democratic system of our government is an imperfect one, I agree. My bigger message is about our elected officials who are obligated to comply with the voters’ will moreso than we as union members are obligated to comply with our vote.
I think, Mark, that you and I are more in agreement than otherwise. Thank you for posting such a thought-provoking article. It really is a difficult situation. I keep hoping that parents and the community will become more involved; that’s what I’m working on. It feels like the legislature has heard the “same old same old” from teachers to a point where they have become deaf to us.