John Axtell (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Mon, 05 Mar 2001 09:47:33 -0800
Ah - Joe has clarified the situation. Thank you Joe.
Which is at the heart of my concern for the JC process and the limiting power
of the democracy. The JC, just like a court of law, is not concerned with the
individual, but the act and the violation of a group norm, a limitation of
The JC is not about individual growth, but of limitation of individual freedom,
and that folks it why the JC concept must be questioned as a vehicle of
The JC it is said is not about disputes, but what else can it be when a person,
exercising his free will is brought before other individuals to be "punished"
for the expression of his free will which others have decided he has no right
to express within their society but a dispute.
The next question is why is anyone who is involved in one of our "schools"
concerned about anything but the growth of the individual. If a person wants a
school where the concern is laws and the violation of those laws they can go to
any good public school.
Has anyone thought about running a "school" as a participatory dictatorship?
Joe Jackson wrote:
> Sorry to hog the list, but...
> I think where things get confused on JC is when we start thinking of JC
> cases as feuds between two people. JC is not about resolving disputes (even
> though I said dispute in my first post - can I take that back?). JC is
> about the embodiment of community norms.
> If a case comes into JC, it will be thrown out if it is purely a personal
> dispute. A rule has to be alleged to be violated, and a rule being violated
> has nothing to do with whatever personal dynamics have occurred between the
> accused and accuser(s). A rule being violated is representative of School
> Meeting having voiced what is a community limitation.
> The idea that JC resolves disputes is inaccurate, and that's another reason
> why mediation cannot take its place. So that's why to try to turn a rule
> violation into a personal dispute by insinuating that it should go to
> mediation is insulting to the plaintiff *and* the defendant.
> That's it for me - sorry for three ponderous posts in a row...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 29 2001 - 11:16:50 EST