Robert Swanson (email@example.com)
Wed, 06 Dec 2000 16:50:00 -0800
This is a simple matter of trusting democracy. The similarity to U.S.
politics is the provision for amendments to the constitution. Were it that
our fundamental operations could not evolve in behalf of social evolution
where would we be today?
It is interesting though... I recently heard a comment that we are a social
democracy and a political republic ("And to the republic for which it
stands, one nation..."). I suppose in some ways Sudbury too has appointed
people who take action in behalf of the community with no public vote taking
place on every action. The danger in a republic is when community people
loose touch with their responsibility to influence leadership. A person may
loose interest, become ignorant, never be informed, feel helpless, or have a
belief that there is a lack of communication, finances or time to be a
contributor. When the individual is not responsible for direction and
change, he must be a pawn of status quo. What is so simply is what is so. As
Paul Harvey says, "There can be no democracy without responsibility". And
thus are we destroying the ecology of the planet, and we elect liars as
presidents. "Them" is not at fault, it is us and our status quo.
Is there a corollary to SVS? The students often seem to say they have little
interest in or involvement with or understanding of the JC for most of the
time they are a student there. Yet the JC is a constant supreme influence on
the culture and happenings at the school. Talk about a pink elephant in the
living room! Did SVS create a proletariat? If not, how is it I have missed
indicators that students have been proud of their influence as members of
the Sudbury community?
on 12/4/00 9:00 PM, Joe Jackson at firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> My apologies, but everything I have heard you say about the further
> evolution of the model can only be implemented by taking power out of the
> hands of students. That they have not already done anything you have
> suggested is the will of their school meeting, so to implement anything you
> have said is to tell school meeting they don't know what they're doing: THIS
> is the further evolution of the model, now stand still while robert and the
> rest of us force it down your throat.
> Sorry, but that's not the kind of school I want.
>> Please inform students that the institution, Sudbury, may now be
>> brought up
>> on charges in the JC.
> Have the legislative members bring the legislature up on charges of poor
> legislating to be heard by the judiciary? I briefly admire the bit of
> poetry here, but in terms of a substantive proposal, I have heard nothin
> sillier. Anyone could make changes through school meeting anytime they want
> to, and to make these changes to the school through any other means amounts
> to circumventing SM (and once again, taking the power out of the hands of
> the student). Just... no.
>> The suggested charge is this: Sudbury has not yet completed its
>> evolution as
>> a transport for youth into adulthood.
> Well, first there has to be a rule to charge against, so SM must first make
> a rule that says "The School shall at all times be, in the view of each
> member of School Meeting and/or Joe Jackson and Robert Swanson (since the
> charge is our suggestion), fully evolved as a transport for youth into
> adulthood". It must then immediately write itself up: since the state of
> evolution of the school as a transport is determined by the judgement and
> guided by the vision of a DEMOCRATIC BODY, it almost by definition CANNOT
> meet the expectations of each individual (as well as the expectations of you
> and I...).
>> Students &/or staff who make the charge must answer and defend what would
>> make the Sudbus a better transport.
> I would say that only full SM or an expressly elected representative can
> defend the school in this vital capacity.
> If full SM were defending, of course there'd be nobody left to charge,
> cross-examine, or serve on JC. The only way to do this would be to ignore
> the structures of the school in order to make the point and stage the
> exercise (and yet again, taking the power out of the hands of the student).
> Possibly a fun and enlightening exercise, as well as a hearty, well-meaning
> abuse of JC and a spirited stomp on the head of student volition and
>> If a corporation is needed to make the
>> change, then the accusers are responsible for this as well.
> Students starting a school corporation to explore ways to make the school
> better is the only ethical (and meaningful) idea I have read in this post so
> far. No offense - this is actually something I wouldn't have a problem with
> happening in my kids' school.
>> What is this a solution to? It is a solution to my admonitions that the
>> development of Sudbury as an educational/developmental milieu
>> should not be
>> hindered by any status quo influence of the given culture. Maybe all that
>> needs to happen is to open a door.
>> Now students really can feel as though they have the freedom and power to
>> control their destiny.
> Now that we have proposed a solution to YOUR admonitions, STUDENTS have
> freedom and power? Gee whiz dude.
> Everything I read here translates to: "A bunch of people learning what I
> want (e.g. 'further development of the model as an educational/developmental
> milieu unhindered by cultural status quo') is more important than learning
> what THEY want (e.g. ??????? ???????????????? freeze tag ????????? ????
> ????????? horse ?????? ???????? Wawa ????? aaaaggghhhhhh! ??????? ??????????
> ??? ??? Esperanto ?????? ??????? SMMOOOOTTCH! ??? ??? ??????? ?? ? D&D! RPG!
> D&D! RPG! D&D! RPG! ??????? ?? ????)."
> Do you refute this?
> Joe Jackson
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 29 2001 - 11:09:50 EST