By: Sara Barnes
It was a meeting of the second-, third- and fourth-grade teachers. About 1986. I, in my late 20s, and my colleagues more than two decades older, as was the principal who had called the unusual meeting. In those days we never had meetings—we came in, did our job, left at 3 pm.
The topic was student grouping for the next school year. As long as anyone could remember, the neighborhood public school had used the concept of “grouping by ability” into “top, middle and bottom” classes from 1st through 6th grades. There was no disagreement within the school about this structure; the change had been requested by the District Office.
The principal had been instructed to ask all the teachers to talk about the possible new structure to create classes that mix students by academic achievement and abilities. Then to report back to the District Office about how the school would be organized the next year. He made his points, ending with something like “Don’t change horses mid-stream, don’t change what works. There will be unintended consequences. Things are good as they are.” Among the 15 or so teachers, there were nods and murmurs of assent.
No one was going to say anything; some were gathering their belongings to leave. I raised my hand, saying something like. “I think it would be fairer. I would like to teach a more mixed class.” The reaction was universally negative, the teachers telling me that I was wrong and didn’t understand how hard it would be. I said some things defending my opinion. From the corner came the angry voice of the only other young teacher, Lisa, who was in her first year of teaching. “It’s not your place to say what you think! Stop making trouble!”
“Not your place”
For forty years I’ve pondered these words. It’s a helpful construction today as I take a look at the topic of free speech and its relationship with conflict resolution services. The conflict over “Here’s what I think” and “Not your place” is a familiar battle. While people go through their lives, conflicting statements such as mine and Lisa’s get sorted out on the ground. These interactions create the boundaries for how free speech operates in real life. It’s a contentious idea that all people have the right, and maybe even the obligation, to say what they think, to share their opinion, to influence others and to be part of the larger discourse. Looking across the world and into history, we can see various restrictions and structures designating which individuals are invited to share their thoughts and ideas and which are not. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, provides, in Article 19, that “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression.[1] ” Yet today, over 75 years later, free speech is not universal.
“Stop making trouble”
John Lewis’s heroic invitation to “make good trouble” aside, most humans are looking to keep their lives well ordered and somewhat predictable, with unwelcome change being a pest to swat away. Changes in core structures, identities, world views and values are particularly difficult. Roles and responsibilities are sorted out within cultural moments and help to inform others about how individuals are expected to share or swallow their ideas.
For those of who might be saying here, “I say what I think when I have something to say,”I’d suggest it’s likely cultural expectations have allowed/encouraged your thoughts. For those who have been marginalized by economics, gender, race, ethnicity, language, etc., its likely there has been teaching, sometimes from birth, to think carefully before speaking, and to mostly keep one’s thoughts to oneself. Sayings such as “When you don’t have something good to say, say nothing,” “Silence is golden,” and “Zip it” are sometimes necessary survival mechanisms.
Read the full version of this Mediation Musings essay here.