“A person who only knows their own side of an argument knows little of that.”
—SethBlogs paraphrasing social psychologist and Heterodox Academy co-founder, Jonathan Haidt, paraphrasing philosopher and free speech defender, John Stuart Mill.
THE FREE EXPUNGE OF IDEAS SERIES:
I: I MAY AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAY, BUT I’LL FIGHT TO THE DEATH YOUR RIGHT TO SAY IT (you are here)
II: NO QUESTIONS ASKED
III: ONE OPINION FITS ALL
IV: NOTHING TO SEE HERE
V: DEFINE YOUR WAY TO INFALLBILITY (1 of 2)
VI: THE INFALLIBILITY CLOAK (2 of 2)
VII: THE SHAME OF THE GAME
I’m no Christy Clark apologist, but the recent criticism of her involvement in the anti-bullying campaign seems silly to me.
As a high-ranking member of the BC Liberal party, Christy Clark used to be the British Columbia Minister of Education where, I understand, she wasn’t always best friends with the BC Teachers’ Federation (BCTF). She eventually left government and became a CKNW radio talk show host where, I noticed for myself, she continued to criticize the BCTF (she claimed blasphemously that they sometimes put their own needs ahead of the young ones they were teaching).
Along the way, she heard the story of some kids in Nova Scotia, who had started a “pink shirt” campaign, wherein they asked everyone in school to wear pink to symbolize their opposition to bullying. Clark grabbed the idea (without, as far as I know, claiming it was her own) and started a pink shirt campaign on CKNW, which was immediately successful. Premier Gordon Campbell (Clark’s former boss) joined in and set aside a day for anti-bullying in BC. This all seemed like a pretty noble effort to me, but wait…
When Premier Campbell resigned from office, Ms. Clark left CKNW to rejoin the BC Liberal party to see if she could become the new leader. The pink shirt day continues on CKNW (in fact, Michael Campbell, the premier’s brother, hosted the anti-bullying program today).
Naturally, as the former CKNW leader of the pink shirt campaign, Christy Clark is still associated with the operation (and indeed promotes pink shirt day on her website), but yesterday, to my surprise, I heard complaints from the BCTF, which seemed to suggest that Christy Clark is an opportunist, who has taken someone else’s good idea and used it for herself.
Said BCTF President, Susan Lambert, “I think Christy Clark capitalized on the idea that wasn’t hers… appropriated the idea for her own purposes, and has made bullying the generic term… something that people are aware of, and that’s good.”
Hmm, now I won’t deny that, for political purposes, the prospective Liberal leader may not object if people looked on her as the originator of this hard-to-disagree-with movement, but, in all the time I listened to her talk about pink shirt day on the radio, I never heard her claim to have invented the idea. In fact, I recall her giving credit to the kids in Nova Scotia.
If the complaint is simply that Clark has promoted someone else’s brainchild, I didn’t realized that one should only significantly support a cause if you started it, yourself. As far as I can tell, Christy Clark took a good idea and helped make it bigger. Is that bad? I suddenly find myself imaging someone starting a crime-reduction campaign only to be told, “Wait a minute! I’m pretty sure this has been done before.”
And I’m not sure exactly how Lambert thinks Clark has used the anti-bullying “for her own purposes” (perhaps she thinks Christy was simply trying to get a bully boss off her back?): all the rhetoric that I’ve witnessed from Ms. Clark has been aimed at schoolyard bullies.
The tragic thing for Lambert is that one’s enemies will sometimes do or say things that we support (or want to be seen supporting) ourselves. I think it’s okay in those cases to say, “Yup, I agree with my rival on that one.” It makes you seem genuinely focussed on ideas instead of who they came from.
As they say in British politics, “play the ball, not the [person].”
THE FREE EXPUNGE OF IDEAS SERIES:
I: I MAY AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAY, BUT I’LL FIGHT TO THE DEATH YOUR RIGHT TO SAY IT (you were just here)
II: NO QUESTIONS ASKED
III: ONE OPINION FITS ALL
IV: NOTHING TO SEE HERE
V: DEFINE YOUR WAY TO INFALLBILITY (1 of 2)
VI: THE INFALLIBILITY CLOAK (2 of 2)
VII: THE SHAME OF THE GAME
Do remember that there’s a leadership contest going on, and all gloves are off! I can perhaps understand why the BCTF may regard Christy Clark as premier with some alarm. I’ll have to say that I’d be with them on this.
It is a shame when realpolitik injects itself into the mix. Clark has obviously made a lot of hay here – it’s certainly a nice friendly cause to which to attach one’s political affections; the rare freebee, considering belligerent teens don’t tend to vote much.
I can see how her enemies almost need to criticize her involvement as a matter of form here. To my mind, it comes off as a little desperate and childish in it’s preoccupation with who deserves the credit for a good idea.
Has the BCTF mounted a more intelligent critique of Clark in addition to this playground stuff?
Thanks TomD and Tarrin. TD: while I empathize with the BCTF’s plight (indeed, there’s nothing worse than catching your political arch enemy doing something so blatantly sympathetic) I agree with Tarrin’s agreement with me that they come across as desperate when they try to undermine Christy Clark for her efforts here. Especially given she began her participation in the anti-bullying campaign long before she rejoined politics. If the BCTF has genuine evidence against Christy Clark, I suggest they present it where applicable instead of picking erroneous fights with her.