Disagreement is not ‘divisive’
Let’s disagree. Let’s agree. Let’s debate.
For the last two years, advocates who hoped to name our new middle school after Ellen Garrison, and who objected to the School Committee’s decision to ignore the town’s majority desire to do so, and who campaigned on behalf of Dr. Michael Williams, have been derogatorily labeled as being “divisive.” Our and Dr. Williams’ beliefs have been dismissed as being mere calculations, as being “purely political.” Several residents, including myself, have been called “appalling” and have been accused of “advancing personal agendas” that risk the well-being of our public school students and our town.
I hardly pose such a dire problem. If being “divisive” means occasionally telling discomforting truths, if “purely political” actions and statements arise from heartfelt personal convictions, and if having a “personal agenda” means that I sometimes publicly state my opposition to opinions I do not agree with, such descriptions are appropriate.
If, on the other hand, these same descriptions are directives to obey some unwritten code of “civility,” I object.
Like any other place in the world, there are people in Acton who can’t stand each other, who agree with each other, and who are unsure about each other. We serve no one in pretending otherwise, and as participants in a democracy we presumably welcome the dialogues — and the occasional confrontations — that result from an interplay of disparate views. Therefore, a call for “civility” — vaguely defined and appealing to a kind of unspoken country club rule of honor — that is also a call for imaginary agreement and real silence, must be rejected out of principle.
Let’s disagree. Let’s agree. Let’s debate. Acton has been around since 1635 and has been a witness to conflicting opinions far more divisive than our own. It will easily survive our present ones. I am sure of that.
Craig Awmiller
Lang Street
