I think actual consensus is more complex than people realize. This post is a case in point. Eric Sheninger writes that consensus is distinct from principles like unanimity and compromise, which is fair enough, but then writes, "consensus is a cooperative process through which all group members develop and agree to support a decision in the best interest of the entire school." He then switches to the passive sense to add "every viewpoint is considered, and earnest efforts are made to address legitimate institutional concerns." Now to me that reads as (and stay with me here) authoritarian. Someone has decided that 'the best interests of the school' prevail, whatever they are, as opposed to (say) the best interests of students; views are 'considered' and 'earnest efforts' are made by someone, who will actually decide what is done, and ultimately, people are expected to "deep collective commitment" even if the outcome didn't meet their original concerns. Now of course this article does not endorse authoritarianism of any sort; the suggestion is that the process emphasises "a shared leadership framework that activates the collective intelligence of the entire faculty." But to work, the collective intelligence cannot be constrained by prior stipulations, cannot be represented by a single voice, and needs to have the ability to decide that perhaps a single shared perspective on something isn't a desirable outcome.
Today: Total: [Direct link] [Share]
