Monday, May 20, 2013

How many will support a petition to end petitions?

A few years ago, I had included in the syllabus a reading on the crisis in Darfur--this was back when it was a major problem.  I provided students with a map of Africa, with the outline of the political boundaries of countries without their names, and asked them to identify Sudan and a few other countries.  One student later wrote in an assignment how she had passionately signed up to the Save Darfur campaigns without ever caring to find out where exactly that place called Darfur was in the real world.

I think that her experience is not uniquely about Darfur alone.  I am willing to bet that the other favorite slogan, "Save Tibet," will also show a similar one--most passionate petitioners wouldn't be able to identify Tibet on a map.

The issue is not about simply geographic illiteracy either. While geographic illiteracy is one reason, I suspect the larger reason is that way too many people sign on to way too many petitions without really thinking through. They do that because maybe it just feels right.  Or their peers do it.  Or whatever.  Signing on to a petition is rarely a decision based on acquiring relevant information and thinking through.

I have always been suspicious of petition drives.  Even when the petition is on issues I care about.  Further, signing a petition means that we want to emphasize that issue, whatever it might be, as a much higher priority than most other issues of the day.  But, how do we know that deserves a top billing?  What are the tradeoffs that I am looking at?  Not that I never sign petitions; I do.  But, only after I carefully examine the argument and if I find that it is being ignored despite its importance and severity.

Two academic presidents--one of Lewis and Clark, and the other of Northwestern--write about taking "a vow against joining the lists":
we eschew petitions because, as researchers and teachers, we know that any important issue deserves more serious thought and discussion than can be captured in a list of demands. 
Exactly!  Especially when we are in the very business of critical thinking, right?

They note how many of the petition drives originate from change.org.  And they note the irony of it all:
Click around the website Change.org, the organization from which several of our petitions come, and you'll find photos of 164 employees. A page labeled "We're Hiring!" lists more than two dozen additional positions. "Like most companies," the site proclaims, "Change.org has a business model that allows us to grow rapidly and be financially self-sustaining, providing tens of millions of people with a free empowerment platform for change."
Change.org also sells advertising—though it calls them "sponsored petitions." We're considering buying one that calls for divestment in companies that propagate petitions. We suspect others will enthusiastically sign on.
Yes, a hilarious Monty Pythonesque petition to end petition drives.  Like a bumper sticker that I once saw on the car that was ahead of me: I hate bumper stickers!

7 comments:

Mike said...

I will sign your petition!

How about the bumper stickers, "Free Guam" or "Free Alaska"? There are more cars in China than ever.

This petition business makes me think of the Initiative Ballot in Oregon. After getting burned as a young voter, my general stance on all things initiated is, "No."

Ramesh said...

Good idea, but I will not sign, since signing any petition, even one ending petitions, will be contradictory to the position against petitions ! My problem with petitions is a different one - not that some people make money on it . Its that petitions are a simplistic yes or no. The issue in "Free Tibet" for example cannot be reduced to a few simplistic words. Its a highly complex problem with multiple shades of grey. Since I cannot agree to a simple yes or no answer ; I cannot support petitions.

By the way it astounds me that a student in a geography class cannot place Tibet on a map. I can understand (though not accept) that you can't place Darfur, or even Sudan - Darfur is small. But Tibet, for God's sake. If you take the whole Tibetan landmass and not just the Tibetan Autonomous Region, its one fourth the area of China !

Mike said...

Good call Ramesh, like Sriram wrote in our online class forum our world, its problem and solutions, are not binary.

I had to stop and cover the contenents with my 10th graders yesterday. Shame on me fo not taking care of that early. To my defence my course is a history one, but still shame on me.

Sriram Khé said...

yep, the not binary aspect of public policy issues is also why i hate the ballot initiatives. a few years ago, i wrote an op-ed on this. those issues require discussions in order to better understand what the different aspects are. and then we decide one way or the other after such an informed discussion. a referendum makes a mockery of the complexity of the issue and forces us voters to vote one way or the other without giving us space and time to explore the "maybe" in between the yes and the no.

btw,i have tried out a couple of other things as well, not merely about darfur or tibet. in a few classes, i have told students that they ought to know by now where afghanistan and iraq are given our extensive military engagement there. yes, very, very few can ID those countries on a map. i am convinced that this is not merely geographic illiteracy, but a reflection of apathy. we simply do not care, and even when we care it is all superficial in terms of how it affects me and that is where it ends. i don't think education can do much to get rid of apathy :(

Shachi said...

I find the kids in US ages 3-10 (who I am around with) have a much higher GK than their counterparts in India. A simple thing like speaking in English - kids in India who go to English medium schools cannot do that properly. Even writing is poor. It could be just the crowd that surrounds me here vs there. Not sure if the GK starts to worsen as they age.

Sriram Khé said...

hmmm .... I would think about what you are seeing in a different way: the Flynn Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect) ... sustained increases in IQ averages.

This is a scientific way of saying the same thing that I have heard grandmothers say all over:that the kids today are a lot smarter than the kids of a few years ago.

While it might not be scientific to extrapolate after that, I would guess that we then notice differences along those between kids in advanced economies where the brains have been exercised a lot more over the generations and kids in societies that are only now beginning their exercise routines. I should emphasize here that this is not any statement on innate intelligence and IQ issues. My hypothesis is that kids when provided with the environment and opportunities to exercise their brains will perform equally well on an average. So, what you see in India is a reflection of the lack of such contexts, and not a reflection of the kids themselves.

Shachi said...

yes I concur. lack of stimulus vs probably over stimulating them here? i try to be very conscious of that with my kids. these are the years they should simply "play" and learn whatever they can from free play. i guide them towards several things but have not yet sat down and taught them anything since they are so little.

My favorite times are reading books, roughhousing, baths n massages, dancing free....walking on the grass, park outings, and shooting their pictures.

sorry I digressed!