A question is really an ambiguous proposition; the answer is its determination. There can be only a certain number of alternatives that will complete its sense. In this way the intellectual treatment of any datum, any experience, any subject, is determined by the nature of our questions, and only carried out in the answers.
Since I’m left out of the leadership conversation on diversity, power and dialogue, here are my questions…
Who benefits from truth not existing, who is left out?
Eg, “that’s just your story…”
I believe that truth exists, Haven doesn’t. We may not agree but without agreeing, we can look at the consequences of each stance.
What is diversity? Someone who looks different? What about someone who thinks different?
How does someone without power gain power? Do they have to conform?
How does power not become destructive when personal feelings can be used as decision makers? Is that dictatorship?
Does someone who is angry have less of a right to speak? Do they have more? I’ve often criticized society for basing platforms on who is the most outraged. However, there seems to be the reverse happening here. If I had to choose one, those with anger should have more, not less… If I had to choose. But equality is obviously most important.
Can someone be a leader who doesn’t believe in a model? Does that discourage diversity? (Don’t worry, I don’t want to be a leader, I’m just curious.)
What are the uses of the term “follower?” What are the drawbacks? Is that conformity? How does that lead to personal agency?
I never said that anyone should follow me, in fact, I said that anyone who does what I’ve done is insane. But I’ve followed no one else…
If we aren’t willing to engage with those we most disagree with, does the word “dialogue” have any meaning whatsoever?
Does creating a First Nations course while not acknowledging racism of founders make sense? (Natives “choosing to be victims.”)
Does constant referral to “founders” as gurus come across as cultish? Are there other models out there? Are the views of founders ever challenged?
Are models presented as “true”? Should they be?
Recall the New Yorker article on resilience: feature most common in resilient people is an internal locus of control–the opposite of “followership”. Does Haven support resilience?
How do we protect against leaders taking on a role of superiority? Should we?
Is there room for other ways of viewing the world or being in the world?
Should research matter? Do we pay attention to research or ideas from the outside world?
Do we want the authority of being “scientific” without the responsibility of being fallible (what science is based on.)
Does the Haven view of language encourage diversity? Recall the linguist’s podcast on “I feel like” and the inability of older people to adjust to new language, while claiming that their language is simply more clear/honest…
If the conversation ended almost before it started, is that a great sign?
Do we want to appear diverse or be diverse? What is lost or gained?
Here are those links again and another that I think speaks to diversity. It also reminds me of a leader saying that anyone who gets a facial piercing is an idiot. It was meant to be somewhat frivolous but these messages, when they are repeated frequently, can be internalized. Especially with children and adolescents, the group of which she was working with. When those who were vulnerable to begin with are left out of the conversation, the true effects cannot be seen. There’s a separate denial that occurs because who really wants to admit they can be effected by frivolous comments?
We all can. Especially from those with authority. But admitting it as a person who had already been classified as an “at risk youth” is not easy. Not even to oneself. A completely secure adolescent doesn’t exist.
At Haven the belief is that they are merely the only ones open enough to share these judgments. I disagree. I tried to agree, before… It is possible to tell if one is accepted by a person even if that person doesn’t share everything that goes through their head; furthermore, these types of comments are far from vulnerable. No one classifies Trump as vulnerable when he makes rude comments about groups of people. I really see no difference… I would like to? Help me out here?