Our city recently experienced an empiric social experiment. In a nutshell: To resolve personal discomfort, an elected representative demanded action that threatened citizens’ rights. First amendment protection deflated the demand, eliminated the threat, and the pending battle of wills evaporated.
Good things happened. The experiment brought city cultural institutions together, new members and more traffic at the Museum of Contemporary Art, a mention in the New York Times and rallied citizens to actively engage in support of freedom.
Bravo, Jacksonville! Crisis averted. Is it time to put the poster board and markers away?
Law, legacy and a league of enthusiasts: trifecta strengthens rights
As the fragile balance between authority and individual freedom settled out, individual freedom prevailed. Was the outcome certain? Functionally, yes. Centuries of artistic precedent validating the challenged content, constitutional protection, and dramatic, public rejection of the demand by supporters of the arts and culture community left little doubt as to the eventual outcome.
If any of the three layers of defense had been missing, there are reasons to believe that the balance might have tipped in favor of unchecked authority or the requirement for a costly legal battle to prevent abuse of authority.
Critical thinking gaps open the way for rationalization of self-interests
For the uncomfortable representative, Clay Yarborough, objecting is apparently business as usual. Objecting to artwork on the basis of moral grounds, though, was the exclamation point at the end of a seven-year sentence of perpetual discomfort. A June 2014 interview published in The Daily Record foreshadowed the drama. In the context of his evolution as a leader, Mr. Yarborough was asked about his “more recent” decision making approach. He’s quoted, “I started looking at every bill on its merits.” That’s significant. It’s even more significant that looking at information based on its merit, also called critical thinking, is often cited as a goal associated with elementary school educational curricula.
It’s commendable that Mr. Yarborough now uses a merit-based analytic process when making decisions, but there’s cause for caution in knowing that he abandons critical thinking for a subset of topics. The Daily Record says, “He [Mr. Yarborough] said he’s taken that stance for other bills, as long as it wasn’t a moral issue.”
Carving out exceptions to making decisions based on merit may seem reckless, but it’s not illegal. Ouija boards, gut feelings, careful analysis, personal comfort or a roll of the dice are all fair game. And with growing evidence that suggests a combination of hunch and critical thinking offers advantage over either alone, don’t look for governing by hunch or demanding actions to mitigate personal discomfort to disappear any time soon.
Law, legacy and misdirected rhetoric: tripartite weakens rights
Two issues spark so much angst in Jacksonville that public discourse is mired in unproductive rhetoric. It brings to mind a line from Thomas Pynchon’s 1974 novel, Gravity’s Rainbow, “If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers.”
The first contentious issue is Human Rights Ordinance 2012-296, written to shore up the defense of individuals’ right to self determination of gender and sexual orientation. The ordinance was rejected by a 17-2 vote in 2012. Taken together, a 2013 Metro Jacksonville blog post and a press release, which was issued on the day of the vote, offer a glimpse into conflicting perspectives regarding the significance of the legislation.
The second issue creating turbulence is the right to justice and due process, which is currently protected under the Constitution, but is experienced differently for black citizens and has amassed a growing legacy of death at the scene of confrontations with authority.
For both issues, the vitriol swirling through the corridors of public discourse creates such hazards that many would-be supporters of individual rights avoid the risk. They stay silent. Out-group members remain the vocal advocates for better protection. In doing so, they’re denounced as hypersensitive, seeking special privileges and motivated by sinister intentions. Powerful in-group constituencies execute rhetorical campaigns focused on criticisms of character and invalidation of out-group experiences. It perpetuates a vicious cycle that amplifies conflict and marginalization. The cycle won’t end unless something changes.
Break the cycle of conflict and marginalization
Before exploring ways to help build a cycle of understanding and inclusion, consider the metrics. No matter where you are now, if you’re moving ahead toward greater understanding and remaining open to discovering your way to help advance humanity, you’re achieving success. Here are some ideas:
Listen with care.
Consider ideas through an (un)knowing mindset.
Listen to a perspective on gender diversity that you’ve probably never heard.
Attend workshops: Straight Ally 101.
Participate in community dialogue: City of Jacksonville study circles and Human Rights Commission events.
Read reports of the annual Race Relations studies conducted by the Jacksonville Council on Citizen Involvement (JCCI).
Vote.
Vote for candidates who unequivocally express tolerance and support of individual rights.
