Christelle is my dear friend. We are opposites in many ways. She is quite liberal; I am quite conservative. She grew up in California, in a Roman Catholic home and with the benefit of a strong Hispanic heritage. I grew up in Utah, in a Mormon home and the benefit of a strong Mormon heritage. She is a Democrat (or at least identifies with many of the ideals of the Democratic Party). I am a Republican (or at least I identify with many of the ideals of the GOP). In many conversations, we have recognized that these differences also reflect deeper differences and commitments.
These differences are real and substantial, but they only tell a part of the story–a small part of the story. More important that any of these differences, are two other points. First, as Christelle said in her first blog post, we share “open minds and a respectful and generous spirit of curiosity to better understand each other’s very different ideas.” Respect, generosity, and curiosity are precursors to both understanding and education. I know Christelle is a fine person, motived by good intentions and thoughtful ideals. When we disagree, therefore, I am curious to understand why we disagree and how. For me, it is fundamental to begin that “why and how” analysis with a charitable–in the Pauline sense of the term–bent. Respect for my friend and a recognition of her generosity to me, induce curiosity in me, and impel me to seek understanding.
The second important point is a mutual commitment to children. Again, this does not mean mutual agreement regarding ways and means; it does mean a mutual, fierce willingness to advocate for children in every circumstance. An example illustrates the point. One of our first encounters was a visit to a Utah school to observe a lesson. I was state superintendent and she was a state office literacy specialist. We were accompanied by various district level administrators and others. The educator taught a fine lesson, and after observing the entire forty-five minute lesson, we were able to debrief what we observed. Another educator explained that the lesson we observed was taught to a “gifted” class of students from a broader (and more affluent) area and that the “neighborhood” students could not be expected to learn the same things. I questioned the educator about the reasons for this conclusion–a conclusion that seemed as wrong to me as it was startling. The never was a satisfactory answer. As we walked out, Christelle and I briefly discussed the matter. As we discussed our advocacy for children and the fact that we were each appalled at the cavalier disregard for the “neighborhood” children, I learned that I had met a kindred spirit in Christelle.
We live in times when division, discord, self-regard and tribalism seem to be ubiquitous. In the law relating to jury trials, there is an old jury instruction–not used for juries any more–that seems wise for conscientious people in divided times:
If a [majority of you] are for conviction, [the minority] juror should consider whether a doubt in his or her own mind is a reasonable one if it makes no impression on the minds of so many other[s] who are equally honest and intelligent and have heard the same evidence and taken the same oath. On the other hand, if a [majority] are for an acquittal, the minority should ask themselves whether they ought to reasonably doubt seriously the correctness of [a] judgment which is not concurred in by most of those with whom they are associated, and distrust the weight and sufficiency of that evidence which fails to carry conviction to the minds of their fellow jurors.
Respect, generosity, and curiosity should make us anxious to understand, not just write off differences. Christelle and I may each be wrong about a great many things. However, the civil, social, and spiritual fruit of respect, generosity and curiosity are not among the things about which we are wrong.
Across The Divide: A Dialogue 