Letter to the Fosters Editor in response to recent opinions published here and at Fosters. The letters referenced in the first paragraph:
- Patsy Pratt, "Praise for the ORCSD Board"
- Tom Bebbington, "Conspiracy Theories Abound"
- Mike McClurken, "ORCSD Numbers" and "A Challenge"
- Calvin Jarvis, "Who is Responsible for the Community 'rift'?"
Is it 1984?
To the editor: Recent letters and commentary in Foster's concerning the Oyster River School Board, particularly by authors Pratt, Bebbington, McClurken, and Jarvis, suggest to me that the district has entered Orwellian territory. I found myself needing a key to the doublespeak:
— When the board makes highly consequential decisions and does not give clear reasons to stakeholders, this is accountability.
— When the board routinely invokes nonpublic rules and schedules meetings at times and with such frequency that they cannot realistically be videotaped or widely attended, this is transparency.
— When supporters shield the board with letters and commentary that are substantiated mainly with conjecture and inflammatory rhetoric, this is communication.
— When these letters are further distributed on the Oyster River Community Resource (blog), apparently out of concern that the discourse so far has been insufficiently antagonistic, this is moving on.
— Being silent about one's legitimate and sincere concerns in between elections is basic to the democratic process.
— If you support the board, names like "inmate in an asylum" and (essentially) "dope smoking hippie" indicate civility. If you question the board, even terms like "arrogant" are disgusting and rude.
— People who want to "engage every learner" are elitist.
— Accusing others of partisanship while being blatantly partisan yourself is nonpartisan.
Readers can keep this decoder handy for future reference.
Apparently, since the authors now feel empowered by agreeable representation on the board, they also feel they have license to make words and concepts mean whatever they want. This is useful for (a) constructing a narrative that affirms their position and (b) signaling to friends that they still agree with them, but it also creates a confusing system of double standards that harms genuine and widespread community progress, which the Board professes to value.
I am open to the idea that the current board deserves my support, and it is unfortunate that the authors have chosen such a belligerent way to convince me I should give it. I therefore wonder if they realize that they've not done the board— or the broader community — any favors.
Jayson Seaman
Durham
In response to Jayson Seaman's assertion:
When these letters are further distributed on the Oyster River Community Resource (blog), apparently out of concern that the discourse so far has been insufficiently antagonistic, this is moving on.
We object to the implication that our motivation in providing a place for community members to voice their concerns is driven by a desire to foster antagonism and discord in the community. We strive to collect and pass on to the community information, opinions, and views as objectively, transparently, and fairly as possible while providing an environment free from censorship and bias in which to discuss.
These are the voices in your community, this is what they are saying, and we want those voices to be given the opportunity to be heard.
No comments:
Post a Comment