Letter to Greeley administrators: What are you teaching our kids?
June 4, 2010
by Penny Vane
Dear Mr. Selesnick, Mr. Bayer, Ms. Glenn, and Mr. Taylor,
What lesson did we give our Greeley students on Wednesday?
Per the district calendar, Wednesday was Student Council Election Day at Greeley. And yet, there was a last-minute change of plans.
[For those reading this who may not be aware of it, the administration decided, less than hours before the scheduled “campaign” assembly, that most speeches would be given by the candidates for student council positions as planned with the exception of candidates for Student Council President, a position suddenly deemed too important to be decided by who gives an entertaining speech.]
How many ways is this sending a wrong civics message?
By cancelling the speeches of the candidates for Student Council President, but not those of candidates for other student council positions, we are telling students that the democratic process is not to be trusted. We are telling them that the other positions don’t really matter. We are telling them that they shouldn’t listen attentively to speeches (or perhaps we are telling them that we don’t trust them to be able to listen.) We are telling them that speeches don’t matter. We are telling them that the election process could change at any moment. We are telling students that there is always a “political machine” behind the scenes controlling the process and working to steer the outcome. We are preparing them to be willing automatons, accepting top-down dictates based on discussions in which they have had no input. And by so doing, we are breeding apathy and disillusion.
This is not the HGHS any of us believe in and have worked so hard for. How could you let this happen?
The role of speeches in elections
As long as there have been elections, speeches have been exercises in engaging the electorate while delivering platforms and promises. Who among us does not respond better to a well-written, well-delivered, engaging, and yes, even entertaining stump speech? How a candidate speaks TO us tells us how he or she will speak FOR us. We need to hear speeches to hear if the candidate feels like us, thinks like us, understands like us. Can you imagine voting for a presidential candidate you had not heard speak?
And yes, as long as there have been student government elections, it remains popularly assumed that they are more popularity contests than any reflection of issue-based decision-making. (And we could even have a worthy conversation on the merits and definition of “popularity.” A word that simply means that the person is liked by many people, but which has devolved to carry punitive connotations, when it might just as well suggest an ability to connect broadly within a peer group, and could as easily be considered an advantage for a person trying to be elected to represent that group.) That said, such continued stereotyping of adolescents as irresponsible voters is yet another in a growing litany of Greeley administrative decisions that disservice and disrespect our students, many of whom are far more thoughtful than given credit for, or perhaps than they are willing to confess among their peers (who may be trying to live “up” to our limited expectations.)
If the administration feels that there is a problem with the election process, then a change ought to have been thoughtfully considered and proposed well in advance of elections, not sprung on both the candidates and the electorate mere moments before the anticipated event. Nor ought varying standards be applied to different positions.
Alternative election process
The proposed alternative election process is fraught with its own complications. As we understand it, the election will now be moved online, with candidates posting position statements and students voting electronically. In the long term, this very well may be an excellent addition to the existing campaign and election process, encouraging students to become better-educated voters. But it should not replace the presentation of speeches and the traditional tools of the democratic campaign process. Nor should such a dramatic change to the way the Student Council President is elected be proposed and implemented within only a few days. Now instead of choosing their president on the basis of a speech, the student body will get whichever candidate was able to persuade more friends to go online to vote.
This is a disheartening demonstration to our students of deceptive, cavalier and authoritarian processes, a lesson I would rather they not learn from our beloved school system, but one they are becoming all too used to receiving from this administration.
I urge you to re-evaluate this decision.
Sincerely,
Penny Vane
Full disclosure: I am the mother of one of the four candidates who was not allowed to give his speech on Wednesday. (He was not one of the candidates who “made mistakes (unrelated to their speeches) in the hours prior to the election that forced us to reconsider how to run this particular part of this election,” as stated by Principal Selesnick in his letter to the student body on Thursday and published on the Greeley web site.)
I will tell those of you who do not know the process that running for Student Council President is already taken very seriously by the administration and any prospective candidates. They must first go through a written application and personal interview process to be “approved” as a candidate. (I fully endorse the idea that there might be some modicum of “requirements” for candidacy, although I could just as easily play Devil’s Advocate and argue that someone elected to represent the students should meet criteria set by students, not administrators.)
Each approved candidate is then required to submit his or her speech more than 10 days before it is scheduled to be given (without even the generosity of a weekend to write it) and it is subject to review and approval by the administration. (Candidates were approved by the administration on Monday, May 17 this year and required to submit their speeches for review by Friday, May 21.) My son received a call just Tuesday night from one of the assistant principals with some suggested edits for clarification, for which he was very appreciative, and said so. He and the other candidates were then called into administrative offices shortly before the assembly on Wednesday to be told that their speeches were being cancelled and a new election process was being instituted.
This has happened before. Elections have been pushed into the fall in the past. Why? Because the administration wants to control what should be a “democratic” process. Lay the rules out in advance and if they are followed, let the chips fall where they may. These are popularity contests, period - end of story. If that doesn’t fit Andrew’s plan - tough. Goofy or ineffective student council members have always been part of this process because funny speeches win elections at this level. So be it. The checks and balances of moderators and students that effect change should allow the council to move forward. But once again, the Selesnick regime has not disappointed in it’s ability to make a mountain out of a molehill and scramble behind closed doors to line up his minyan to speak with one voice. I think this is how the Venezuelan elections work too?!!?
For clarification: I wrote this letter when the initial reason for cancelling the speeches was given as “too important to be chosen on entertainment value.” The letter from Mr. Selesnick about “mistakes” made by certain candidates came a day later. The full disclosure published here was updated after the fact to include reference to the “mistakes” rationale, to assure you I wasn’t just writing to cover up for my son in some way.
Would anyone be kind enough to make an educated guess at the type of “mistakes” that caused the speech making to be cancelled?
Don’t the students deserve the truth as to why the candidates were not able to present their (already vetted) speeches to the student body?
Without exactly knowing the student behaviors that prompted the change in the Student Government electoral procedures at Greeley, I do not believe we can make the argument that Principal, Andrew Selsnick is practicing ‘deceptive, authoritarian or cavalier behavior’. Mr. Selsnick is the principal of our highly recognized school that many of us are proud of and even love! In my opinion, he has done a marvelous job since beginning his tenure as Principal.
It disturbs me that nowhere in the comments above did a parent agree or even mention that students running to be President of the student body should be leaders in academics and civic responsibilities. They should and must be held accountable for their actions, as should all students. I sincerely hope that being President of the Greeley Student Government is not a personality or popularity contest.
Yes, it is too bad that two innocent students did not get to give their speeches at the assembly. I hope they can include parts of their speeches in their position papers, which I am sure will be avidly read and discussed by the student body.
Our children, and yes they are still children, must learn the responsibilities of living in a democratic society that still believes in morals, civic obedience and honesty. Yes, we all have to accept that our society is not completely free; we all live by rules and laws that govern our behavior. There are penalties for breaking these rules/laws and for our misbehavior. It is the duty of the school and its administration to teach our children their rights, privileges and the penalties of breaking rules/laws. This is how education readies our students to become knowledgeable, honorable and trustworthy citizens of our Democratic Republic.
I agree with the spirit of the comments expressed passionately by Ms Vane. Student elections serve the important purpose of providing a degree of ‘supervised’ autonomy at a stage when autonomy is important, and of allowing evolving maturity on the parts of the candidate(s) and the electorate. The administration appears to be suggesting, in perfunctory fashion, that high school students, in arguably one of the best schools in the country cannot be trusted to evaluate and judge the merits or otherwise of potential presidential candidates based on their previously ‘vetted’ speeches. If indeed the ‘mistakes’ committed by one or more of the candidates were truly egregious enough to merit such a draconian step, then full disclosure from the administration would help to set the record straight - if the concerns were more minor, perhaps there is an opportunity to allow the potential candidates to act ‘presidential’ and work with the administration to restore a semblance of mutually acceptable democracy to this important facet of high school life. Either way, the path that the administration has chosen, hints at machiavellian intrigue rather than academic moral high ground.
