We Don’t Need More Gandhis – We Need More People Acting on Their Ideas

Image courtesy of six million dollar dan
via Creative Commons.

Note: Zoe is on vacation, so please enjoy this repost from 6/3/09.. 

In my book, Most Good, Least Harm, I share stories of individuals who’ve created positive change through volunteerism, philanthropy, innovation, entrepreneurship, and activism. When I lead MOGO workshops, I invite participants to consider the ideas of a few individuals who’ve made a difference for others and to imagine their own ideas. We all have them. Unfortunately, they may lie below the surface, seemingly inaccessible. Perhaps as children we were told our ideas were impractical, or we were humored, cute creators of finger paintings and crayon drawings, instead of encouraged to be real visionaries.

I remember a pivotal moment in my childhood when an adult took my ideas seriously. My best friend, Robin, her brother, Tory, and I, would often play together as children. Robin and Tory’s father was Victor Kiam, entrepreneur and businessman. Victor became well known as the man who liked Remington shavers so much that he bought the company (Remember those commercials? “Shaves as close as a blade or your money back.”). But, before Remington, Victor ran other businesses. Robin, Tory and I liked to create skits and commercials, and Victor encouraged us to come up with ideas for a commercial for his company. He wasn’t just indulging us. He was serious. I truly believed that if we came up with something really good, he’d truly consider using it. I felt empowered and appreciated. I knew my ideas mattered.

My own father was also a businessman. And he was one of the best, kindest, loving men I’ve ever known. I adored him, and 24 years after his early death, I still miss him terribly. When I was little, he sometimes took me to work with him. He was the vice president of a textile company, and it was so much fun to hang out in the art room where artists designed the fabrics. I got to paint to my heart’s content, and I was often very excited to show my dad my work. I asked if he’d ever consider using my art. I was indulged and humored, but the truth was I knew that my art would never make it onto a pillowcase. Now, my father wasn’t the president of his company as Victor was, so he may not have been able to offer his daughter the possibility of such an achievement, but there was something deeply disappointing in knowing that there was no chance, no matter how good my work, that it would be welcomed in this world of commerce.

How many of us have come to believe we have no real ideas or products of merit, nothing within us to lead, to create real change? I recently gave a MOGO talk, and afterward a woman told me that she felt a bit depressed afterward. “We can’t all be like you,” she expressed. “I’m not Gandhi.”

Well, I’m sure no Gandhi either, but that’s not what the world needs. We don’t need more Gandhis; we need more people who believe in their capacity to bring their creativity to light and manifest their ideas. We need more people who, as children, were given the gift of knowing that their ideas – if good – could be made real.

You have dozens of ideas, maybe below the surface just waiting for a bit of excavation. Dig in. What ideas do you have? Make them real. Make just one of them real. It matters that you do.

For a humane world,

Zoe Weil, President, Institute for Humane Education
Author of Most Good, Least Harm, Above All, Be Kind, and The Power and Promise of Humane Education
My TEDx talk: “The World Becomes What You Teach

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

The False Dichotomy of Localization vs. Globalization

I recently watched Helena Norberg-Hodge’s TEDx talk, The Economics of Happiness. I’ve appreciated Helena Norberg-Hodge’s work for some time, but I was disappointed in her TEDx talk. Helena is an impassioned speaker, with much global experience underlying her perspectives, but I wanted more than what I perceived to be a simplistic, either/or solution to our problems. She begins her talk by saying, “For all of us around the world the highest priority, the most urgent issue, is fundamental change to the economy.” She goes on to say, “The change that we need to make is shifting away from globalizing to localizing economic activity.” Essentially, she believes that a return to localization will bring about happiness. I found myself thinking that this solution lacked nuance and complexity, and I doubted very much whether it was truly the urgent answer for our time.

As she went on to argue that 99% of us don’t benefit from globalization, I found myself thinking of the vast majority of us who have certainly benefited from many aspects of globalization. While the farmers’ market and local food movements have surely done good, helping farmers, communities, and individuals alike, I could only imagine the 99% of coffee drinkers I know here in New England, and all those who eat bananas, drink orange juice, enjoy black and green teas, consume avocados, lemons and wine, eat rice, and wear cotton foregoing it all for apples, potatoes, wheat, blueberries, mint and chamomile tea, mussels and clams, and linen clothing and deer hides. Further, I thought of the people in temperate climates who’ve been saved by medicines derived from tropical plants, and the people in the tropics saved by the medicines discovered by scientists working in New England laboratories.

Imagine what would happen to the Ethiopian coffee farmers depicted in the film Black Gold whose organic, fair trade coffee would no longer have a market outside their communities, or to the sustainable and fair trade collectives producing goods and clothes for a living wage that are lifting individuals out of poverty as these products are sold beyond their borders. I wondered what would happen to all these people were we to all choose to buy locally.

The choice between localization and globalization is a false one. There are more nuanced choices we can and should make. If the primary problems lie in monoculture farms, poisonous chemicals, fuel-guzzling animal agriculture, exploitation of farm workers, cruelty to animals, and reduction in biological diversity of crops, we can address these problems directly. Fair trade, organic, sustainable, diverse, plant-based farming will help solve these challenges without closing markets between north and south, east and west, or in the U.S. between the fertile heartland, citrus-bearing Florida, and California (where just about everything grows). I’m happy that my state of Maine provides blueberries and lumber to people across the country (although I would like it to do so without toxic pesticides and clear-cutting), and I’m also happy that I can live in Maine and still occasionally eat dates and drink red wine.

What I see as the bigger challenge with globalization is the fuel necessary to transport crops and products across the globe, but as Michael Berners-Lee reveals in his carbon footprinting assessment of hundreds of products and foods in his book, How Bad Are Bananas?, local doesn’t necessarily mean less carbon intensive. Bananas from equatorial regions, he points out, use a fraction of the fuel of hothouse tomatoes grown next door to him in England. These are complex problems that are going to require innovative solutions, and we’re going to have to find clean energy sources no matter what we do, whether we buy locally or globally, assuming we want to live without returning to a fuel-less life.

I don’t know many people – even local food advocates – who really want to give up everything produced outside of 100 miles or whatever constitutes “local.” It’s great that we’re witnessing a revival of local, sustainably-produced food, and I for one enjoy producing much of my family’s food in our 900 square food organic garden, but localization is not a panacea. My hope is that in the process of coming up with solutions to our very complex global challenges, we will not resort to simple answers that may fail to harness the creativity and brilliance we really need to build a just, healthy, and happy world for all.

For a humane world,

Zoe Weil, President, Institute for Humane Education
Author of Most Good, Least Harm, Above All, Be Kind, and The Power and Promise of Humane Education
My TEDx talk: “The World Becomes What You Teach

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

Sam Chaltain and the Freedom to Learn

For my blog post today, I want to share an excellent, thought-provoking TEDx talk by educator, Sam Chaltain, “The Freedom to Learn.” Take a look and then ponder your own stories of learning:

Sam has just joined our board of advisors at the Institute for Humane Education, and we’ll be working with him on an exciting learning and storytelling event on October 14 in Portland, Maine. Stay tuned for more!

For a humane world,

Zoe Weil, President, Institute for Humane Education
Author of Most Good, Least Harm, Above All, Be Kind, and The Power and Promise of Humane Education
My TEDx talk: “The World Becomes What You Teach

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

John Hunter and the World Peace Game

For my blog post today, I want to share an amazing TED talk by educator, John Hunter. Take a look and please share this:

I am hoping to learn more from John and look forward to opportunities we may forge with him to incorporate this brilliant World Peace Game into the future work of humane educators everywhere.

For a humane world,

Zoe Weil, President, Institute for Humane Education
Author of Most Good, Least Harm, Above All, Be Kind, and The Power and Promise of Humane Education
My TEDx talk: “The World Becomes What You Teach

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

To Solve the Education Crisis We Must Refute Faulty Assumptions

For my blog post today, I’m sharing a recent post I wrote for Common Dreams, a progressive news site. Here’s an excerpt from “To Solve Education Crisis We Must Refute Faulty Assumptions”:

Among the biggest challenges we face in “educational reform” are the many faulty assumptions that underlie our efforts to fix the problems we perceive in schools. Because we fail to deeply assess and evaluate these underlying assumptions, we continue to misunderstand the problems, propose answers to the wrong problems, or address only a portion of a much larger overall challenge.

What are some of the common educational assumptions to which I’m referring? Here are a few:

Assumption 1: The goal of schooling should be to graduate students who are verbally, mathematically and technologically literate and who are able to compete in the global economy.

Assumption 2: To best achieve the above goal, we must evaluate students using standardized, multiple choice tests.

Assumption 3: Schools are not the place to teach or discuss values.

There are many more such assumptions that need unpacking, but for the sake of this essay, I’ll simply address these three by attempting to reframe each with questions (and the beginnings of answers) that might lead us toward different approaches to solving educational challenges in the 21st century.

Read the complete post.

For a humane world,

Zoe Weil, President, Institute for Humane Education
Author of Most Good, Least Harm, Above All, Be Kind, and The Power and Promise of Humane Education
My TEDx talk: “The World Becomes What You Teach

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

Khan Academy: A Revolution in Education

One of the questions that I’m frequently asked is: How can humane education –- which explores the interconnected issues of human rights, animal protection, environmental preservation, and culture, providing students with the knowledge, tools, and motivation to become solutionaries for a better world –- be added to an already overburdened curricula? There is so much students must already learn, people say, and we have not even succeeded in providing them all with the basics of verbal, mathematical, technological and scientific literacy.

My answer has been twofold. First, I believe that learning how to become solutionaries for a better world should be the highest goal for education, and thus we should allocate time for this through courses, clubs, and teams in school. And I’ve also suggested that humane education can infuse all subjects, creating relevancy and meaning no matter what basics we’re acquiring. While I believe integrating humane education into various disciplines can be done, it’s true that there are some topics that lend themselves more easily to humane education than others. There are also subjects that demand a great deal of basic knowledge and skill prior to understanding how they can be used toward solutions to global problems.

Having just watched the TED talk of Salman Khan, founder of the Khan Academy, I find myself so excited to imagine a new way of learning, studying, and gaining knowledge and skills that enables people to master both basic and advanced knowledge in subject areas more quickly and efficiently than is likely to be achieved in our typical classrooms, that I now see a third way in which humane education can infuse our schools. If students (of all ages and in any setting) were to learn subjects through Khan Academy’s videos and practice software (subjects that are expanding all the time on Khan Academy’s website), the time left to collaborate, work with teachers, problem-solve for a better world, and become informed changemakers would grow substantially.

I am so excited by Khan Academy and its potential to revolutionize how we learn.

Zoe Weil
Author of Most Good, Least Harm, Above All, Be Kind: Raising a Humane Child in Challenging Times, and The Power and Promise of Humane Education
My TEDx talk

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

No Independent Thought or Discussion Allowed in AP Class!

A friend’s daughter is taking Advanced Placement (AP) World History. During class she and another student got into an engaged discussion about a topic they were studying that both had passionate feelings about and which both were prepared to discuss respectfully and knowledgeably. One had made a statement with which the other had disagreed and so voiced her opinion. The other was eager to take her on, his eyes lighting up with enthusiasm. But rather than allow the discussion to unfold and engage the rest of the class, the teacher responded by saying, “Whoa you two, okay. That’s enough of that.”

AP classes are meant to be the equivalent of college courses. Has it really come to this that there are teachers, especially at this supposed high level of learning, who will not permit their students to voice their opinions, engage in discussion, or even be permitted to think and speak in class about the very topics they are studying?

The dangers we face in the world stem from a combination of our lack of critical and creative thinking, along with our propensity for myopia and our deadening of our own compassion. The systems in place that perpetuate injustice, destruction, and cruelty cannot be shifted or changed if we are unable to assess them; yet schools have been relentlessly moving away from critical and creative thinking as they have focused more and more on covering material on which students will be tested.

It’s time to devise solid and meaningful assessments for critical and creative thinking, reasoning, and innovation. That is what our world needs from our graduates. And if we elevate these skills and develop good ways to chart our progress in conveying them, perhaps our children will finally be invited, encouraged, and made to think.

Zoe Weil, President, Institute for Humane Education
Author of Most Good, Least Harm, Above All, Be Kind, and The Power and Promise of Humane Education
My TEDx talk: “The World Becomes What You Teach

Image courtesy of Scott Ogle via Creative Commons.

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

Mark Bittman: “Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others”

I so appreciated Mark Bittman’s March 15 opinion piece in the New York Times, “Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others.” Our hypocrisy surrounding the treatment of animals is stunning, and Bittman’s essay makes the point powerfully as he recounts the ASPCA’s arrest of a teenage girl for killing her sister’s hamster (a felony) while the routine killing (following nothing short of torture) of billions of other animals in our society is not only legal but ubiquitous.

Bittman’s essay describes the sort of unreflective and hypocritical (as opposed to critical) thinking that prevents us from creating a society that is just and humane and healthy, and I would love to see this essay read in high school classrooms, followed by class projects that uncover various inconsistencies within their own schools and our society that require investigation and, hopefully, rectification.

Imagine what would happen if our students became these sorts of critical and creative thinkers.

Zoe Weil, President, Institute for Humane Education
Author of Most Good, Least Harm
My TEDx talk: “The World Becomes What You Teach

Image courtesy of meddygarnet via Creative Commons.

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

Reflections on Competition in School

An educational reformer whom I admire very much was kind enough to watch my TEDx talk, “The World Becomes What You Teach,” and provide feedback. While he enjoyed the talk, he had one quibble with it. I had suggested that instead of debate teams in schools (in which students are arbitrarily assigned one side or another of a fabricated either/or scenario and told to research, argue and win), we have solutionary teams, in which students still compete (because, as I said in the talk, we love to do that), to produce the most innovative, practical and cost effective ideas for solving entrenched challenges. This reformer felt strongly that competition, even for solving problems, would set kids against one another so that “one has to fail in order that another can succeed,” a major social problem as he sees it.

Prior to giving my TEDx talk, I thought a lot about whether to suggest solutionary teams or just focus on solutionary clubs, courses and approaches in school. A very competitive person myself, I rejected competition for a long time. I found it personally damaging as a child, getting physically ill before both tests and gymnastics meets. I very purposefully sent my son to an elementary school that did not have grades, in large part because I didn’t like the idea of learning being conflated with winning and losing (which grading essentially promotes).

Yet I remember when my son yearned for competitive sports and learned from both the losing and the winning. Both experiences were important for him. Winning gracefully and practicing good sportsmanship helped him become a better person, just as losing gracefully and striving against tough odds helped him persevere and try harder. I also remember when he asked his 8th grade teacher to give him grades on his work so that he could understand, beyond the narrative, where his work stood on some comparative scale.

We humans are competitive, that’s certain. We are also cooperative. Is there room for competition in education? My vision of solutionary teams is primarily cooperative. Students will work together to come up with solutions to problems. Yes, they will then compete with other teams, and yes, one team will win and the other lose (or they will sometimes tie), but will this be damaging? Or will it perhaps inspire greater cooperation, critical and creative thinking, and commitment the next time? Will it prepare these students for a world in which competition – like it or not – exists side by side with cooperation, the great ideas and innovations becoming the de facto “winners” in both the world of ideas and of the marketplace? It may. Would it be enough to promote solutionary clubs and courses in school, or would these not generate the kind of enthusiasm reserved for competitive sports, marginalizing what I think should be a centerpiece in school: creative work for a better world?

I’ve come to believe that losing need not be damaging, and competition, though adversarial, need not be hostile. But, I am cognizant of the dangers of introducing a new form of competition into a system already permeated with what I consider to be an overly and damagingly competitive structure. I welcome your thoughts on this. What can we gain through carefully constructed solutionary teams within our schools? What do we risk? What are the best solutions to responding to our competitive-loving natures? Should we advocate for solutionary clubs alone, or both solutionary clubs and solutionary teams, the choice being up to the students themselves?

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

Image courtesy of artfulblogger via Creative Commons.

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

What Would Motivate Our Kids?

In another great RSA Animate YouTube film, Daniel Pink shares what really motivates us. It’s not what we think. After watching this video, I wondered what schools might do with this information.

Currently, our schools use grades and privileges to both motivate and punish students. High grades and special privileges are supposed motivators, and poor grades and removal of privileges are punishments. But extrapolating from Daniel Pink’s research, one wonders whether the incentive of good grades, or the fear of bad grades, and the incentive of greater privileges and the fear of removal of privileges, are really the motivators that we assume. Probably not. Not only does the goal of achieving a high grade often lead to rote memorization (often forgotten) and cheating, it also separates what should be the real goal: learning, from the real reward: learning!

Most of us love learning, and as this video describes, people are willing to learn a musical instrument on their own time with no external reward in sight. They’re also willing to share their learning with others, again with no extrinsic reward. When learning becomes its own motivation and reward, we’re golden, and when we realize this simple fact and hire engaging teachers who love to learn and love to share their learning, and abandon our carrot and stick approach in schools, we may find that our students astonish us with their capacity to learn, produce new ideas, and go on to teach what they know to others.

Zoe Weil, President, Institute for Humane Education
Author of The Power and Promise of Humane Education and Most Good, Least Harm: A Simple Principle for a Better World and Meaningful Life

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 431 other followers