First of all, I found it odd that when I was asked (in both cases) to model respectful discourse across the left-right divide, I was forced to make nearly 30 minutes of politically progressive speech at the start of each session. .
Higher education began with an encouragement to unite against the narrow-minded right-wingers who mindlessly hate higher education and want to destroy DEI. The December 5th congressional hearing exposing the presidents of MIT, Harvard, and UPenn as hypocrites who are licensed lawyers was mentioned, but not an embarrassment to institutions of higher education. Rather, it was evidence of the evil and nefarious intentions of the right. Talk about an ironic prelude to a session nominally dedicated to understanding the crisis of public trust in higher education.
The state meeting featured the state chief turning his scheduled three-minute introduction into a 20-minute campaign-style play. Are parents concerned about schools excluding their children regarding their gender identity? It's just a matter of “anti-LGBT+” bigotry. Are there parents who are vocal about their opposition to elementary school libraries containing potentially pornographic material? It’s just a more right-wing “book ban.” He didn't suffer from chronic absenteeism, chaotic classrooms or lackluster student achievement, but he did find time to brag about increased spending. Our session (billed at 60 minutes when they asked me to fly) lasted only 26 minutes, when the warm-up was rough compared to the theoretically tight schedule. If I were a member of the gang, I would have laughed all this off. As someone who is conscious of being an outsider, this all seemed to send a clear but subtle and unintended message.
At both meetings, I felt more like I had crashed a local Democratic party meeting than at a large tent gathering of educators. There wasn't even the slightest bit of right-wing friendly rhetoric. You will not find the words “freedom,” “tighten your belt,” “personal responsibility,” “rigor,” or “reasonable people will disagree about these things.” Welcome blaster. Nonetheless, the organizers of each event told me that right-wing members were present, that they wanted to make those members feel valued and listened to, and that they expressed a desire to be seen as helping to lead. In these polarized times.
All of this has me confused. Didn't they realize how political all this opening babble felt? Did they view opening remarks as perfunctory, as if sharing left-wing talking points at an educational gathering was like singing the American flag before a big game? Did they imagine that conservative concerns would be so obviously untrue that even those on the right wouldn't actually believe them? Anyway, it was uncomfortable. It was as if I asked a Trump apologist to ditch right-wing red meat for 15 or 20 minutes at one of the communal dinners I host with guests including teachers unions and Biden nominees.