Competition for the Good #1: Debate Teams in British Columbia

I’ve just spent a week traveling to British Columbia and Seattle to offer humane education and MOGO (Most Good) workshops. In BC, I first gave a talk at the Vancouver Public Library, and I brought up my idea for solutionary teams in schools to exist alongside debate teams. (I’ve written about this idea in a previous blog post. I was surprised when one of the attendees said that in BC it’s uncommon to have debate clubs or teams at school.

The next day I was leading several workshops at a teachers’ conference, and as part of my keynote talk, I had planned to discuss this idea of solutionary teams in contrast to debate teams, but because I had been prepped by the comment the night before, I wanted to know from the audience if it was true that in British Columbia debate teams were uncommon. Did their schools have debate teams, I asked. They shook their heads. Well, do you have solutionary teams? Still no. So, I encouraged these Canadian teachers to lead the way on solutionary teams, and perhaps we in the U.S. will follow. That is, unless some teachers and school administrators who read this blog want to get them going in their schools!

~ Zoe Weil
Author of Most Good, Least Harm

Image courtesy of Lulu_Vision via Creative Commons.

Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to the RSS feed.

MOGO is for Pessimists, Too

Here’s another excerpt from my book, Most Good, Least Harm: A Simple Principle for a Better World and Meaningful Life, that I wanted to share with you.

“Some may be pessimistic that MOGO (most good) living can truly change intractable problems and create a peaceful, humane, and healthy world. Yet the MOGO principle is not just for the optimistic. Walking the MOGO path is joyful and meaningful in and of itself, and inevitably restores our hope as we, and others who share our vision, persevere and create healthier lives and a healthier world. As former Czech Republic president, Vaclav Havel, has written: ‘I feel a responsibility to work toward the things I consider good and right. I don’t know whether I’ll be able to change certain things for the better, or not at all. Both outcomes are possible. There is only one thing I will not concede: that it might be meaningless to strive in a good cause.’”

~ Zoe Weil, author of Most Good, Least Harm

Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to the RSS feed.

Most Good, Least Harm

For the next few blog posts I’m going to share excerpts from my book, Most Good, Least Harm: A Simple Principle for a Better World and Meaningful Life.

My book, Most Good, Least Harm, “is based on a very simple premise: when we do the most good and the least harm through our daily choices, our acts of citizenship, our communities, our work, our volunteerism, and our interactions, we create inner and outer peace. I call this way of living ‘MOGO,’ short for ‘most good,’ and it has become the guiding principle of my life.

The MOGO principle is simple in theory, but it asks much of us. It requires a willingness to learn new information so that we might continually reexamine our lives with the greatest good in mind and commit to conscious and deliberate choice-making for the benefit of all. Doing so calls upon us to live with integrity, courage, wisdom, perseverance, and compassion. While at first glance this might seem quite challenging, embracing the MOGO principle is deeply rewarding. It puts us on a lifelong journey that helps us realize peace within ourselves as well as create a peaceful world.

I realize it can be very hard to imagine a peaceful world given the state of things: the horror of war, poverty, genocide, and human oppressions; the escalating degradation of the ecosystems on which all life depends; and the terrible cruelty that is perpetrated institutionally on animals. Yet we humans have faced seemingly insurmountable problems in the past, and we’ve triumphed many times. Apartheid in South Africa was eliminated. Mahatma Gandhi showed us that nonviolent resistance can topple an empire; and women gained the right to vote in democracies across the globe. Many people could not have imagined the end to many injustices prior to their demise. And, although humanity’s cruelties and failures persist, our positive achievements are enormous and unstoppable. These positive achievements have happened because individuals like you have chosen to make a difference.”

Zoe Weil, from Most Good, Least Harm

Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to the RSS feed.

The New Golden Rule

For the next few blog posts I’m going to share excerpts from my book, Most Good, Least Harm: A Simple Principle for a Better World and Meaningful Life.

“We’re all aware of the Golden Rule to ‘do unto others as we would have them do unto us.’ Whether phrased in the positive or negative (don’t do unto others what wewouldn’t want done unto us), this ‘rule’ is integral to every major religion and has been prescribed by philosophers over millennia …. But now our complex world requires a new Golden Rule, one that enables us to put into practice the original Golden Rule universally. In a world in which our clothes, food, transportation, fuel, products, and homes come to us through a web of connections that extend around the planet, we need a principle to guide us so that we actually can do to others, no matter how geographically distant, as we would have them do to us, and refrain from doing to others that which is abhorrent to us. Most good, least harm (MOGO) is that principle. MOGO calls upon us to raise our awareness and connect the dots between ourselves and others whom our life impacts so that we can make sure that we are not being abusive or oppressive, and instead are increasing joy, health, and equality for everyone.”

Zoe Weil, author of Most Good, Least Harm

Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to the RSS feed.

The Important Message in Stephen King’s Under the Dome

I just finished reading Stephen King’s new book, Under the Dome. The book is about what happens to a small town in Maine when a dome descends around their town, blocking their access to the outside world. (Note: If you want to read the book, you may want to skip this blog post because I’m going to reveal the source of the dome.) There are lots of important themes in the book, not least of which is the power accorded to the selectman who takes an evil, manipulative, Hitler-like role and creates a gang of followers who destroy the town through ignorance, greed, stupidity, and power addiction. A revisit of Lord of the Flies, adult-style.

But the theme that interested me most was the revelation that the dome was created by alien children as a game — one that is compared throughout the book to those cruel games human children play on animals, such as burning ants by directing the sun’s rays at them through a magnifying glass.

In Under the Dome, we are the ants, but all the alien children had to do was create the conditions for fear and panic. We humans did the rest, destroying ourselves and responding to fear and danger with a conflagration. Not all humans, though, and this is the hope. We can overcome our penchant for indifference and curiosity that turns into cruelty. And we can raise our children to respect all others, including ants, and to refuse to indulge the impulses that would have us treat anyone – even the smallest of living beings – as anything less than worthy of reverence and kindness.

Zoe Weil
Author of Above All, Be Kind: Raising a Humane Child in Challenging Times and Most Good, Least Harm

Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to the RSS feed.

The Gift of Snow

I live in rural Maine, and two weekends ago we had a huge snowfall. One of my favorite things about snow is that no animal can escape its ability to perfectly mark tracks. Last week, my husband and I went snowshoeing in a wilderness area. We followed a fox trail for a long while, passing the trails of many small rodents — among them mice and squirrels. Next we came across porcupine trails –- a veritable Times Square of them –- followed by the tracks of a smallish member of the weasel family.

We hiked up a small mountain to where cliffs descended, and all around us were Rock Dove tracks. Rock Doves are pigeons, but in this context it’s worth calling them Rock Doves because they build their nests on cliffs (which is why it should not be a surprise that they have adapted so perfectly to city life where tall buildings provide the perfect nesting sites).

Next we came upon coyote tracks and followed them for awhile, until we descended to a bog and pond. There we smiled at the carryings-on of an otter, who alternated between running and sliding, leaving what looked like a Chutes and Ladders game in the snow.

At one point, I lay on the snow and let the bright sun warm me. I felt a momentary wave of blissful peace here among my wild relatives who, thanks to the snow, revealed themselves to me.

Zoe Weil
Author of Most Good, Least Harm and Above All, Be Kind

Image courtesy of Edwin Barkdoll.


Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to the RSS feed.

Critiquing Educational Initiatives Instead of Exploring Fundamental Questions About the Purpose of Schooling

In her recent Atlantic Monthly article, “Cultivating Failure”, Caitlin Flanagan critiques the current educational movement to bring the cultivation of gardens into schools and curriculum. Because Flanagan makes her argument so well, I don’t want to try to paraphrase her, except to summarize her position: Taking time away from book-learning for gardening, especially for Hispanic children whose families have worked to escape poverty and to provide their children with an education that will enable them to do things with their lives other than farming, limits precious studying time, thereby reducing the acquisition of essential knowledge. As with many well-thought-out critiques, the criticism is compelling, but suggestions for solutions are weak, if non-existent.

To me, the problem with debating specific curricula or initiatives in education — whether school gardens or another program — is that the big picture is often lost. That big picture requires that we explore and seek to answer the question “What is schooling for?”

We will answer this question differently in different settings and situations. Some of the Hispanic families that Flanagan writes about might say that the goal of their children’s education should be to provide them with the core competencies and tools to enable them to have healthy, positive, and economically successful career choices. The girls in Pakistan and Afghanistan educated in the schools built by Greg Mortenson’s Central Asia Institute might answer that the purpose of schooling should be to teach them to be verbally and mathematically literate in order to escape crushing poverty through skills that make them employable in life-sustaining jobs.

These are important and noble purposes for schooling. Yet, at this point in history they are not good enough. They may be good enough in certain situations, but not as the overarching educational purpose of a wealthy, powerful nation such as the U.S., whose work force and citizenry have enormous influence on everyone and everything across the globe.

Instead of focusing on specific educational initiatives such as school gardens, we need educational leaders, teachers, and parents to ask and answer the question “What is education for?” in a visionary way that assesses the world we live in, all those we are impacting, and the future we are influencing. In a world that is quickly warming, rapidly desertifying, overpopulating, losing species at an alarming rate, drying up ancient aquifers, running out of relied-upon energy sources, escalating its reliance on slave and sweatshop labor and thereby fomenting inequity and rage, and so on, the narrow focus on educating for white-collar jobs through ensuring specific core competencies just isn’t enough. It’s foundational but inadequate education. And this is why either extolling the virtues of school gardens or critiquing them isn’t enough either.

Flanagan quotes the late Theordore Sizer’s compelling statement from his 1984 book, Horace’s Compromise:

“If students have yet to meet the fundamental standards of literacy, numeracy and civic understanding, programs should focus exclusively on these. Some critics will argue that the school must go beyond these subjects to hold the interest of the pupils … but a fourteen year old who is semi-literate is an adolescent in need of intensive, focused attention.”

Who can argue with this? Of course teenagers need to meet such fundamental standards, but these should not be hard to meet. It only takes a couple of hours a day at most to meet such standards if we organize our schools efficiently, reduce class size, and hire excellent teachers. To argue against school gardens because we’re failing at these very minimal and basic standards is to give up on the great potential and power of education. And to focus on school gardens as some awesome or awful use of time just leads us away from the essential goals we must embrace. The core competencies every child must have must be directed toward a greater and worthy purpose, and that, in my opinion, is the development of healthy, just, sustainable, and humane systems so that we solve the grave challenges we face and build a world in which we can all live and thrive.

Until we begin having a discussion about the core question “What is schooling for?,” we will continue to argue about specific educational initiatives and fads and lose sight of the great promise that schooling holds and the great danger if we fail to achieve that promise.

Zoe Weil
Author of The Power and Promise of Humane Education and Most Good, Least Harm

Image courtesy of spacecadet via Creative Commons.

Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to the RSS feed.

Zoe Weil Interview on Animal Voices Radio – Listen Live!

Zoe Weil, president of the Institute for Humane Education and author, will be interviewed on Animal Voices Radio on CFRO 102.7 in Vancouver, British Columbia. The interview is Friday, January 15, at 12:30 PM (PST). Zoe will be talking about humane education andMOGO (Most Good) choices, and the power of both to create a compassionate, just world. You can listen live!

If you know someone else who might like to tune in, please let them know!

(Posted by IHE staff.)

Status

My husband and I are taking an 8-week improvisation class. The first class met last week, and one of the topics that we explored was status. Our teacher asked us to have a group conversation about coffee. The conversation was short with every person contributing briefly their opinion about coffee. There were a few back and forth comments, and then we were done.

The teacher asked us who had the most status in the group.

What a question!

I had never thought about status in the context of daily interactions and conversations, but as we explored this concept, it became clear that status lurks in almost every circumstance and relationship, and once I became aware of it, I could see it everywhere – in body posture, facial expression, tone of voice, and the content of what was spoken. People are claiming status and people are giving it away all the time. But interestingly, status doesn’t necessarily correspond with social class, education, profession or what would seem like its outward manifestations.

The physician who looks downward, bites his nails, and mumbles may have less status in an interaction than a laid-off blue collar worker who is friendly, clear, and looks directly at the doctor. Status is fluid, changing all the time depending upon circumstance. It comes with confidence and often with an open, kind, unafraid demeanor. It is lost when we avert our eyes or defer to another against our own values or beliefs.

But why is status so ubiquitous? Can we imagine our species living without its presence? Given that we share the social configurations status conveys with many other species, one wonders if it something to overcome or something to understand and work with so that it does not perpetuate oppression and exploitation, but rather becomes a part of our psychology and social relationships to lift into the light.

I’m only at the beginning of paying attention to this new concept in my life. I’ll report back in this blog as I notice more. Meanwhile, I’d love to hear other people’s thoughts on status – what elevates it and what diminishes it and what makes it disappear into an honest and healthy equilibrium among people.

Zoe Weil
Author of Most Good, Least Harm and Above All, Be Kind

Image courtesy of zozo2k3 via Creative Commons.

Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to the RSS feed.

What If Schools Had Solutionary Teams?

Two debate-related events coincided last week that sparked this blog post. First, at my son’s high school the seniors had their debates. Every senior is required to participate in a debate in order to graduate. Second, I read this report that had been aired on NPR:

“In Mexico, thousands of people have died in drug-related violence in the past three years as the government has ramped up its war on drug cartels. But is the United States to blame for Mexico’s drug woes?

Some argue that the United States bears responsibility because of its market for illegal drugs, along with the flow of guns south of the border. Others blame Mexico’s government, saying it permitted a culture of corruption to flourish and resisted U.S. help for decades.

A panel of experts recently faced off on the topic in an Oxford-style debate. Part of the Intelligence Squared U.S. series, the debate featured three experts arguing for the motion “America Is To Blame For Mexico’s Drug War” and three arguing against.

In a vote before the debate, the audience at New York University’s Skirball Center for the Performing Arts voted 43 percent in favor of the motion and 22 percent against; 35 percent were undecided. After the debate, 72 percent agreed that “America Is To Blame For Mexico’s Drug War,” while 22 percent remained against and 6 percent were still undecided.”

Does anything strike you as odd about this debate? It certainly seems odd to me. How could something as complex as “Mexico’s drug woes” ever be reduced to an either/or question of blame? But so often, this is what debates foster – either/or answers to complex problems. Choose a side, argue it, and win or lose. Meanwhile the issue isn’t solved.

I think learning the skill of debate in school is useful. It fosters critical thinking and the use of logic. But I wonder why high schools have debate teams and make participating in a debate a requirement for graduation but don’t also have solutionary teams and make participation in creating solutions to problems a requirement for graduation.

Imagine if every school had a solutionary team; better yet, imagine if every school had a course in developing solutions to entrenched challenges. Better yet, imagine if the very purpose of schools was to prepare students to be solutionaries no matter what field they pursued upon graduation.

Maybe we should start with solutionary teams. Students could tackle a problem and (if we must have competition to make such a team fly) could compete. The winner would be the team that came up with the most effective and practical solution to a given challenge.

Oh, and then we could implement their solution.

Maybe we should institute a debate on whether this is a good idea or not.

Cheers,

Zoe Weil
Author of Most Good, Least Harm

Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to the RSS feed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 549 other followers