Lebanon's October 15th Board Meeting & The Potential Review

From the Lebanon Express account, it sounds like the review is dying a relatively quick and painful death.

More specifically, it sounds like Robinson is doing his best, with prejudice, to kill said review. I'm not surprised, but I cannot stress enough how counterproductive and short-sighted I think this is.

Bluntly, I don't see the core of the anti-Robinson contingent coming around based on his future management style, even if he's as soft and gentle as a kitten. It's not happening. What might split the contingent and start resolving the underlying conflict - maybe - is for some of their grievances to be addressed to their satisfaction. (Note: This does not require getting rid of Robinson.)

Robinson, however, seems to be doing his best to stifle any sort of inquiry that might stand a chance of placating folks. To me, this is indicative of the 'old' Robinson, the one who might be conflating "leadership" with "absolute power." It therefore suggests that he's not really learned what he seems to need to learn, which is to compromise - or, to be a little evil - to at least appear to compromise. He's not even doing that.

The result, I think, is that those folks that bear grudges against Robinson are not going to let them go anytime soon. They are not even going to start letting them go. Robinson's refusal to address the perceived mistakes - whether or not the mistakes are real or not - is probably going to a fairly significant issue.

Unless, of course, Robinson plans to literally outlast the entire anti-Robinson contingent and hire only folks who like him, in which case this is the best move possible.

No, the preceding paragraph is not serious. In fact, it's an idiotic and impossible idea - but it makes the most sense (which is to say, still none) if we grant that Robinson appears to be a fairly intelligent human being.

The only other thing I wanted to address from the story is this quote by Debi Shimmin:

Board member Debi Shimmin made it clear she she wants an independent review to move forward.

“When I made the motion to bring Jim back I told the community we would do this review,” she said. “My credibility is on the line.”

This is absolutely true, especially among the folks who supported her vote to suspend Robinson.

It is also absolutely stupid, politically, to say it. Note: I did not say that Shimmin was stupid. I said that publicly admitting her actions are tied to how she perceives her credibility is stupid.

It's stupid, by the way, because it suggests she is beholden to the will of the community and not her conscience or what she believes is the best course of action for the district (and in this case, it undermines her stated belief that a review is necessary on the merits of the case). It's also very, very bad politics, even if it's true. I'd much rather the basis of my disagreement with someone be their principled, thoughtfully considered political position than the fact that they make decisions based on pleasing one group of constituents. (And I know exactly how naive this sounds; I'm saying this is what should be, not what is. I have no illusions about how politics works - but I do dream of a better world.)

By the way, what do I think are the reasons there should be a review of Robinson at all? Well, as best as I can tell, there are three things.

1. Special Education - both the fact that I've been told multiple times that kids in special education classes are being forced to take standardized tests as if they were fully-abled students and the fact that for some reason (possibly related) three of the four special ed teachers at LHS resigned in one year, writing a letter to the superintendent or district as to why. I've not read the letter, but that behavior is a giant damn red flag, or at least it should be. Oh, and also the fact that I've seen kids who are developmentally disabled placed in the same classes as kids who seem to be pushed into special education classes on the basis of behavioral problems. This is a terrible, terrible idea that I've only seen hurt everyone - behavior kids because being in such a class suggests that their academic chops are being called into question, and developmentally disabled kids because the behavior kids take out their anger and frustration on everyone in sight, which hurts the possibility of a learning environment.

2. Punitive personnel transfers. I've not seen any concrete evidence, but this sort of claim is incredibly hard to prove without an organized investigation since it often relies on pulling together a very disparate set of evidence. However, I know that at least in the high school the turnover rate seems incredibly high. Also, former teachers have corroborated this point with me.

3. Robinson's management style/the anger of teachers. This is the most vague of the three, but as I have said before, there is no freakin' way so many teachers get so angry for so long without some basis for their anger. What that basis is is as of yet unknown to me, at least concretely. I can guess at it, but it seems worth looking into.

I want to address one point of contention: That I believe an independent review is necessary (as opposed to an in-house review).

First, cost: Bite the bullet. Pay for it. Get your money's worth - no open-ended review, shop around, etc. - but I simply think that doing it trumps the money argument.

Second, the political argument: No one who believes in the need for a review is going to be satisfied with an in-house thing. They will not think it's credible, because they don't perceive Robinson or anyone on his staff or his side as credible. An external review that validates him is something Robinson can point to and use as a political weapon, as distasteful as that might be.

Third, on merit: As mentioned, Robinson's credibility is an issue with lots of folks. Why is this a merit argument and not a political argument? Simple - because the people who Robinson lacks credibility with are teachers and staff members within the district, and it is absolutely necessary that Robinson be a credible leader for them if the district is going to do anything but resemble a disaster. Yes, said staff and teachers have a responsibility to work toward reconciliation and trust as well (for example, buying into the results of a review or maybe into a new program that Robinson develops), but Robinson needs to lift a damn finger when it comes to attempting to regain his credibility through being willing to compromise, and I don't see him doing it. An external review that validates Robinson should be evidence that he is acting properly, and at that point, if his critics are still shouting, they stand to lose what credibility they have left.

I get that it's easy to see this as a waste of time and money, and to think that Robinson's critics are power-hungry and not all that bright. However, that sort of dismissive view is both counterproductive and, I think, a product of some education-related class bias - and class bias trumps reason almost every time.

The LCSD School Board and the Book

The more I think about it, the less I think the collaborative book discussion thing is going to work. Disclaimer: I think it's a great idea, but my undergraduate training was all about reading something and then talking about it with others who had read the same thing, so Sprenger's idea is right up my alley.

LT's post about the pre-meeting discussion, which is sort of funny and not really all that surprising, is part of my evidence.

Here's the thing: I doubt Rick, Josh, or Chris have ever done anything remotely like this before.

And what are they being asked to do, exactly?

Have a book club meeting - and more than that, have a book club meeting in which they, as LT noted, discuss the ways in which they communicate as individuals and board members. In front of people.

Put that way, I'm not surprised it didn't work, at least as according to LT's description.

I'm almost embarrassed to admit that I didn't see this coming.

None of the three (Chris, Josh, Rick) strike me as anything but your average, off-the-shelf male (with Rick being the Lebanon version, ha-ha) when it comes to gender socialization; as such, they've all been socialized not to share their feelings in public (for that matter, the idea of the book club has long been perceived as feminine in American culture - see the reaction from 'the right' when it came out that Barack Obama was using a book club as a campaign tactic; the reaction, for the record, was to call him a sissy). Furthermore, like many males they've most likely never been asked to be introspective about their communications styles. And finally, and I think this is probably only true of Rick (but maybe Josh) they have no real interest in the book since their true interest is in power, and not in overseeing an improving school district.

At the least, I think it was a bad idea to hold the discussion in public. I'm guessing it would be illegal under Oregon public meetings law to, say, hold the discussion during the day on a weekend at someone's house, but still - one would think they could find a way to create a better environment for this than the dais. An executive session sounds unfair and unwieldy for this, but it might be the only realistic way to get some privacy - which seems necessary for the creation of a safe environment.

On the other hand, I doubt the six of them - the board plus Jim Robinson - would happily coexist (much less consider it a safe environment!) in a private setting for long. I suspect the public pressure to behave at least semi-professionally is one reason things are as civil as they are.

In any case, I am not surprised to hear that the discussion was less than a resounding success. I almost wonder if Sprenger made the offer in good faith, or if she used - and is using - it as a bludgeon to illustrate what jerks and/or how incompetent she thinks Josh and Rick are. I mean, it's not hard to predict that they weren't really going to buy in, and asking in public (though public meetings laws could have required that) is one way to make them look like buffoons.

Oh well. In either case, I'll volunteer right now to try and facilitate any kind of discussion between the five board members and the superintendent. I might be in over my head, but I think that those folks have absolutely got to find a way to be honest without the usual consequences of anger and rancor. Things. Will. Not. Get. Better. Until. This. Happens.

That One About Feminists and Sex That's Making the Rounds

The original item that's causing all the commentary is this:

Contrary to popular opinion, feminism and romance are not incompatible and feminism may actually improve the quality of heterosexual relationships, according to Laurie Rudman and Julie Phelan, from Rutgers University in the US. Their study* also shows that unflattering feminist stereotypes, that tend to stigmatize feminists as unattractive and sexually unappealing, are unsupported.

Imagine my surprise. Utter and complete shock, I tell you.

The best commentary on this I've seen so far is this:

It’s not complicated to figure out why feminists would have more fulfilling relationships and better sex lives. When you see your partner as a human being and not a means to an end, you’re going to pick a partner you actually like, and your partner is going to feel valued for who they are, not for what they can give you. When you think that sex is a mutually pleasurable event where both partners should be comfortable and fully satisfied and neither should feel guilty or mistreated, you’re going to have better sex. When you see women as full-fledged people with full human rights — not baby incubators, not “the fairer sex,” not “compliments” to your existence, not status symbols, not holders of sex, not property, not your own personal support staff — you’re going to enjoy their company more. And they’re going to enjoy yours.

I agree fully.

Colbert to Run for President

This guy is good.

Not necessarily the announcement video...

Three Questions

1. Is it sustainable?

2. Is it just?

3. Is it unapologetically utopian?

F*cked

Via Slashdot, this just blows my mind:

Under new rules proposed by the Transport Security Administration (TSA) (pdf), all airline passengers would need advance permission before flying into, through, or over the United States regardless of citizenship or the airline's national origin.

...

The new rules mean this information must be submitted 72 hours before departure. Only those given clearance will get a boarding pass. The TSA estimates that 90 to 93 per cent of all travel reservations are final by then.

The proposed rules require the following information for each passenger: full name, sex, date of birth, and redress number (assigned to passengers who use the Travel Redress Inquiry Program because they have been mistakenly placed on the no-fly list), and known traveller number (once there is a programme in place for registering known travellers whose backgrounds have been checked). Non-travellers entering secure areas, such as parents escorting children, will also need clearance.

...

One additional point, also raised by Hasbrouck: the data the TSA requires will be collected by the airlines who presumably will keep it for their own purposes – a "government-coerced informational windfall", he called it.

Anyone who tries to tell me we don't live in a police state is crazy. At the least, the U.S government thinks we live in a police state.

A Perspective on Planned Parenthood

Via Feministing, this great account of life as a medical intern at a PP (hint: It has very little to do with abortions). Please note how the (male) intern's assumptions about the supremacy of his specialized knowledge have been challenged - and he knows it. Good stuff.

Men's Rights Activists

From what I've seen, a generally obnoxious group of folks. Jeff at Shakesville runs down some things about MRAs:

What is an MRA?

He's a Men's Rights Activist, part of the broader Men's Rights Movement. He--

Wait, wait. "Men's Rights Movement?"

Yes.

...

You brought up abortion--I'm guessing the MRAs aren't exactly pro-choice, are they?

They're pro-choice for men. They think, by and large, that abortion is fine, if it gets them out of fatherhood when they want to, and they think, by and large, that abortion is evil if it keeps them from being fathers when they want to. They're big fans of spousal notification laws, and as you can see by the "Choice for Men" rhetoric, they're also big fans of having the legal system help them manipulate women into terminating pregnancies that they would otherwise carry to term.

It's kind of funny and kind of sad, but a useful primer nonetheless.

Gore

From Rootless Cosmopolitan (which is a great name for a blog, btw) comes this point about Gore and the Nobel Peace Prize:

While the Nobel Peace Prize given to Al Gore (and the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) does not sink to the same depths of moral squalor as, for example, that awarded to Henry Kissinger, it nonetheless belongs in the same category, as a prize given by the establishment to itself in proof that The System Works. In truth, Gore’s achievement has been no more then a
first step, and its sole virtue is to raise the level of awareness about an impending disaster.

Get Off My Lawn, Global Climate Change Edition

There's not really much to say about Hering anymore, at least not for me.

I mean, what do you say to something like this:

Having won the Nobel Peace Prize, Al Gore said: “We face a true planetary emergency. The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity.”

A crisis?

The word has been overused in recent years. But if we take it at its real meaning, we must do something. Now. A crisis doesn’t last long. It tips one way or the other in a short time. The Cuban Missile Crisis was real. If it had gone the wrong way, it could have ended in a nuclear war. For a couple of weeks there in October 1962, the survival of the world hung in the balance. Then the crisis was resolved.

If the climate is having a crisis, we should know the outcome in a couple of months at most.

If the issue is not resolved by then, if in fact we keep droning on about it for the rest of our lives, then it’s not a crisis at all.

It might be a problem — like overpopulation or the world gradually running out of oil — but it’s not an emergency that we have to overcome right now. We can deal with it as we learn how, as long as we’re not rushed into the wrong approach by the likes of Al Gore. (hh)

A couple of months? Obviously, he has no idea what kind of time frame climatologists use.

Second, he's either missing or omitting one of the major points around climate change: that actions humans take now are cumulative, and have effects that extend for hundreds of years - so yes, what we do now is important even if the planet's atmosphere doesn't completely destabilize tomorrow.

And that last dig - "not rushed into the wrong approach" - has got to burn the thousands of scientists who have been working on global climate change for decades. One would think the evidence they've gathered is worth something, anything.

Oh well - it's not like Hasso will have to deal with it.

I always thought that editorials were supposed to include some level of research on the part of the author, but Hering is really proving me wrong.

h/t MS.