Unity Does Not Mean Agreement

Huh?

Dear Friend and Community Member,

I have always strived to be transparent with you, as that is the role of your public representatives. In that spirit, I’d like to share what has been on my mind over the last few weeks. I hope you find it relatable, and in a good way!

In a polarized world made up of identities rooted in sound bites and an overall lack of critical thinking, issues have become largely binary and shallow. Particularly on social media, the absence of constructive disagreement is expected and largely considered acceptable. If this becomes the norm upon which our community, our local boards, or our institutions are founded, we are doomed.

Idaho school boards are, by law, “non-partisan.” This means that candidates may not run for office based upon their political affiliations. Why would this be? How do you know where a trustee stands on “the issues”? First, you need to ask them in order to know. Second, this structure is meant to foster a board culture of unity—cohesion around a shared purpose that is greater than any binary affiliation or school of thought: our youth.

Herein lies our societal conundrum: when identities are binary and lack depth, how can the “good ones” and the “bad ones” work together for the betterment of a community institution? How can supposed enemies come together to agree on decisions? By establishing a shared motive or purpose. By having intentional, in-depth, and meaningful conversations around the nuances of drivers and decisions. By building trust through making motives known until five people—who could very well be polar opposites—find a shared purpose (or “shared moral imperative”).

But if we assume someone’s entire identity based upon a single viewpoint, we shut the door on productive conversation. After all, we would know them so well, based on a single sliver of information, that we could accurately predict their side of any hypothetical conversation—right? Given that we now “know” everything about their beliefs, we can and probably should classify them as a friend or an enemy—right? And if anyone who says “X” is an enemy, then our only remaining hope is that “Y” gains power over our public institutions, lest we be doomed—right? This is a very depressing model of governance, and I believe Cascade is greater than that.

So what does unity look like, and how do we create it?

Unity—also known as cohesion—doesn’t depend on groupthink, nor is it defined by agreeing most of the time. Cohesion comes from working toward the same goal. Let’s look at parenting, for example. Mom and dad share the purpose of raising their kids, and they agree that parenting means certain things: instilling values and principles, establishing healthy lifelong habits, and being clear about desirable family dynamics. This does not mean mom and dad agree on what time the kids should go to bed on Saturday. It doesn’t mean they agree on whether to go to the lake, go camping, or catch up on projects over the Fourth of July weekend. What it does mean is that mom and dad are unified in their parental purpose, and that purpose drives them to work together—cohesively and as a team—to sort through all the other decisions that arise. It also creates a moral basis from which to approach shared decision-making.

If we applied identity politics to this example by removing that shared moral imperative, dad might assume that mom wants both kids to live short, obese lives simply because she offered them ice cream late at night (we all know sugar late at night is unhealthy, right?). If this assumption were accepted as true, there would be zero hope for mom and dad to amicably work together on any other aspect of parenting. There would be no hope of verbally working through disagreement because mom’s responses would already be “predictable” based on an identity assigned to her from a single data point. All hope would be lost.

This is the danger of identity politics. A lack of trust and the inability to have meaningful discussion are symptoms, not the problem itself. The problem is assuming someone’s motives based on a single sentence. Once that happens, meaningful decision-making becomes impossible. In fact, hostile assumptions create distrust across all topics. Inevitably, interactions devolve into defense or attack. The identity politics of late-night ice cream can be fatal to a household.

The same is true for a board.

Our school district has a new—and very young—board. The average trustee tenure is about two years, and two members are brand new. The next several board meetings will set the tone for how this board functions for years to come. I hope and pray the board approaches decisions with nuance, and that they are willing to deliberate openly, honestly, and publicly on matters that impact our community and our youth. It is my greatest hope that all five trustees show up with conviction to fulfill their roles to the best of their ability and take seriously their solemn duty of representing the electorate. There are no higher stakes than the foundation of life we offer our youth, and we cannot succeed in this endeavor without unity on the board.

The next board meeting is tonight at 6:00 p.m. As always, I hope to see you there!

Brad Howlett

Want a deeper dive?
Books: Coherence, Improving School Board Effectiveness, and A Search for Common Ground.