|
November, 2003 Volume 14, Issue 3 - Doing the Right Thing |
 |
 |
 |
By Martin M. Goldstein
The recent demonstration at the opening of the new Library offered a plethora of opportunities to screw things up. After the destruction of the eight vocational programs, the 86% and 83% No Confidence votes, the firing of 18 CSEA folks, including several union leaders, the loss of over 300 part-time faculty, etc., etc., etc. there were a lot of angry and frustrated people on campus who wanted to “do something,” and the opening of the library was the obvious time and place for it to happen.
But it was a library, and for some of us, libraries are close to holy, and for all of us they are symbolic centers of the schools in which we teach, as well as the workplace for several of our FA colleagues, and we could not treat any of that lightly. So what should we do? -- and not do?
Ultimately, we did the right thing(s), and given that “if it works, don’t fix it,” is a sound general rule of life, it’s worth exploring not just what we did, but how we did it. Whatever we did, worked, and while we don’t need to fix it or change it, if we simply want to repeat it, we’d better know what it is and why it worked.
And what I have concluded so far, as someone who was present throughout the entire decision making process, is at it’s simplest, this: We Listened To Each Other. We respected each other’s ideas, and took them seriously even if we didn’t agree with them. Even, in fact, if they were polar opposite, it seemed, to ours. At Least We Listened.
It was that “open mind” attitude which allowed us to prevail by making all the right decisions, with credit to all who played a part in the discussions which led to that outcome. It was a sense of mutual respect for everybody who was involved in the decision, and the decision-making process, including two reps from the library present asking us not to disrupt their ceremony.
It was a powerful case simply because they are our colleagues, they are us, and thus their needs and feelings could not be lightly dismissed.
At the same point there was a need for political action, an imperative to act in the name of a greater good, that of the College as a whole, which in many of it’s parts, including the library, has already been seriously damaged.
Enough to give an ethicist eczema, and we actually had one in the meeting, a colleague from the Philosophy department, and while he helped us to work the problem, he evidenced no excessive scratching. Ruling by consensus was the key process, and while it’s much harder and takes much longer than simple majority rule, it proved to be the right way to do what we did.
We talked a lot and we listened a lot, and we finally came up with the optimal solution: If we don’t do a demonstration during the Opening Ceremony, then librarians are happy. If we do it before, and do it passively during, then we are happy. So everybody wins, and crucially, nobody (on our side) loses.
Which, of course, is what happened. The Library was honored properly, even joyously as Huell Howser quite rightly celebrated our love for the school as demonstrated by our colorful activism. California Gold, indeed. In fact, the Library probably got more and better coverage than if we’d done nothing. At the same time, we got our point across while making a clear statement to the entire campus of our collective wisdom and sense of responsibility.
We did the right thing, because we did it the right way. We listened to each other. It’s a valuable lesson we learned the easy way, rather than the hard way, and that felicity was not accidental, but earned and deserved. So to all involved in the Faculty Association Job Action Task Force, kudos for a job well done. It wasn’t easy, but it was done right.
|
|
|
|
