Oh hey you’re talking about me! You could just refer to me instead of making it sound all shady by listing only my titles. A post of mine was flagged and I edited it. Flag removed. That’s all it takes.
I also don’t know why other posts got flagged. I’m all for people seeing the rhetoric these folks are using! It makes my point better than I ever could.
I gave my arguments. If you don’t personally find them convincing, so be it.
“Not just a process you didn’t like”
A process I just didn’t like? By any objective definition of democratic processes, the UUA is an illiberal democracy. That is not up for legitimate debate. The UUA’s own commissioned report said it is undemocratic and nonrepresentational. My liking or disliking the process is neither here nor there as far as that question goes.
.
Looking back at the post you were replying to (Which I admit I should have done in the first place), I see that I wasn’t using the word “corrupt” about the UUA. The word corrupt was used in the description of general scenarios not about any specific organization or event including the UUA or GA. As others have commented, this sometimes confusing forum format can make it difficult to know what someone is replying to.
Below is the original post you were replying to (and that is not using the word “corrupt” about the UUA):
Process, and such things as fairness in process, are important aspects to me. Even if a corrupt political process produces a good leader, the process is still wrong and must not be accepted. In my view, the ends don’t justify the means. The danger of corrupt or otherwise bad political processes, especially if they become normalized, is that they may produce a bad leader, perhaps a corrupt dictator, in the future. Not accepting an unfair and corrupt process, even when it gives you the result you wanted this time, is being proactive. It is also being ethical
Our hymnals are soon to be a relic of the past too.
Frank Casper asks me if three of the current principles are outdated and obsolete. The Study Commission didn’t think so, because the three he mentions are also in the new version to be voted on this year. But the new text includes additional discussion of “values,” and new Inspirations and Inclusion sections. Those illustrate more clearly the differences between the liberalism many of us grew up with in the 1960s, rooted for the most part in Northern and Western European cultures, and the multicultural realities of 21st-century America. Hence my support for the new Article II. It appears that Mr. Casper and I differ about issues more profound than just the preferable text for Article II.
Let’s talk about trust. Did you know that at GA 2023, the last sentence of the proposed Interdependence Value was struck out by 78.4% of the delegates voting on Amendment 52? How did this happen? Charles DuMond* said it was a “friendly amendment” made AFTER the vote. **Someone at a UUA Board Open House said it was a wordsmithing “editorial change”. If an error was made at GA 2023 the Bylaws provide a remedy (Section 15.2(a)). Instead “someone” simply ignored the delegates vote. Someone didn’t like the way the vote turned out, and changed the Amendment to suit themselves. They thought no one would notice. How can I trust anyone now?
*He answered this question in an e-mail to me and others.
**It was not Kathy Burek. At the Mid America Regional Assembly, she said the Interdependence Value had been reworded. Someone else called it an editorial change.
The article was only intended for your benefit, to answer your question, which I mistakenly assumed was honestly asked. It was not intended for your use as some kind of resource. Besides, there was more to the post. I gave you an introduction to the view I most resonate to, and it had a book and an author to boot. What did you do? You chose to ignore it. So, I doubt an essay without an author is that much of an issue for you. You simply used it as an excuse.
I often hear the term “inclusive democracy,” and have wondered what UUs meant by that term. I recently heard a UU minister define it. Whether it was his personal definition or a standard UU definition, he said that inclusive democracy means an election is not treated as “winner take all,” but the winner takes into consideration and incorporates many of the ideas and concerns of the losing party.
With the division and strife that this bylaws rewrite has created both nationally and at many congregations, I see such a “inclusive democracy” approach as the only hope.
I agree with many of the concerns and aims of the UUA leadership and activists. I support UU and congregations working towards attracting racial and ethnic minorities, and people of different cultures. My partner, who is an Iranian immigrant, has commented on how few racial minorities there are at my congregation. I also agree that, for its future health and survival, it has to work to attract a younger generation. As with other churches, UU “aging out” is a real concern. I also value that UU congregations work to be welcoming of LGBT folks.
Not only am I Sephardic Jewish, with my Sephardic ancestors coming from Turkey, Egypt and Iraq, but I am autistic and bipolar. Thus, I appreciate how people of different cultures can be frustrated by a UU congregation’s dominant culture. I’ve commented that being autistic often is like “being from a different culture,” and I believe I’m one of only three Jews at my congregation, and undoubtedly the only one that is Sephardic (There are only 200,000 to 300,000 Sephardic Jews in the United States, as opposed to 6 million Ashkenazim. Even at the synagogue I attend, I’m in a small minority, with Sephardic Jews having a different culture, history, food and native language than the majority Ashkenazim). Further, I’m a cognitive and neuroscientist, and some of my work is in neurodiversity and working on how to make communities and organizations more welcoming and understanding of people with mental disorders. How to make organizations, such as churches, more welcoming of people who are different is a very part of my work.
In short, I support many of the UU leadership’s and activists’ aims but disagree with the approach on how it is being done and don’t believe it will be effective.
I believe that a way to make UU and congregations more welcoming of different peoples and cultures is to welcome viewpoint diversity and expression not stifle it. By definition, multiculturalism involves people who have different ways of seeing and doing things.
A question I often ask is: Do UUs, especially white UUs, really listen to minorities, or do they only listen to minorities who agree with them? Confirmation bias is an innate human tendency, and if UUs “center” and platform only minorities who agree with them and share their political positions, I don’t consider that listening to minorities.And if they aren’t really listening to minorities with open and curious minds, how do they expect to attract outside racial and ethnic minorities to their congregations or think their congregations will be welcoming of them? I have written on this issue, such as in the below post:
The Consequences of Ignorance and False Assumptions in Activism (substack.com)
Further, as someone who is both autistic and bipolar, and who researches and writes about neurodiversity, I recommend reading the following post:
Intellectual Freedoms Support Diversity: A Neurodiversity Perspective
Below is a quote from the above-linked post:
Neurodiversity is about viewpoint diversity
A key to supporting people with mental disorders is to know that there is a great diversity of views within every demographic. As with every race, ethnicity, sex, and nationality, people with mental disorders have a wide range of political and social views, philosophies, aesthetic tastes, and personalities. There is no one view on issues of pathology, medical treatments, and the neurodiversity movement. A saying about the autistic is, “If you’ve met one autistic person you’ve met one autistic person.”
While well-intentioned, modern social justice activism that is illiberal, dogmatic, and expects conformity in ideology, politics, and language oppresses the very minorities they are trying to support. Enforced groupthink is the antithesis of supporting diversity and multiculturalism.
Extremist social justice movements that falsely claim they represent the “one, authentic voice” of a demographic and shout down all dissent create misperceptions about minority groups. Not only does such toxic extremism not represent the views of most minorities, but it hurts the cause.
A church, organization, or community where people who express different viewpoints, including dissent, are ad hominem attacked, called names, and ostracized, or where there is only one accepted and acceptable perspective, will not be a healthy or welcoming place for neuroatypical people. It also will not be a healthy or welcoming place for most members from any minority demographic.
Do you care to be a bit more specific? The principles you say are included are altered and buried in the verbiage of values you claim is an improvement on them. But you don’t say how they are improved except to refer to new “Inspirations and Inclusion sections.”
For instance, tell us how the second statement in the following improves the first.
Current bylaws:
Section C-2.4. Freedom of Belief.
Nothing herein shall be deemed to infringe upon the individual freedom of belief
which is inherent in the Universalist and Unitarian heritages or to conflict with
any statement of purpose, covenant, or bond of union used by any congregation
unless such is used as a creedal test.
Proposed replacement:
C-2.5 Freedom of belief.
Congregational freedom and the individual’s right of conscience are central to
our Unitarian Universalist heritage.
Congregations may establish statements of purpose, covenants, and bonds of
union so long as they do not require that members adhere to a particular creed.
You tell us that they differ from the liberalism we grew up with, our heritage from “Northern and Western European cultures.” But you don’t say how they differ except to refer to “21st-century multiculturalism.” You say that you and I differ profoundly about more than just the A2 language, but you don’t say how.
You really seem to don’t want to answer this question Frank. Quelle surprise. This question must be making you frustrated.
I’ll ask it again:
“And the general assembly has had oodles of chances to hold the nebulous “leadership” accountable.
Like GA 2023 Nom Com election.
Like GA 2022 Board Election.
Like GA 2021 Board election.
Precisely how many times does GA need to give the same message to leadership for it to be heard?
It seems you want UUA leadership to ignore all the recent contested elections in favor of your viewpoint. That is the literal opposite of “democratic process.””
If the UUA is ultimately accountable to General Assmebly, which the UUA is - why should the UUA ignore pretty much every election result for the last 8 years and substitute all of those elections for the will of a small but loud group?
So if this process is in no way shape or form corrupt, which you seem to admit with your most recent post, why bring the terminology “corrupt” into the conversation at all?
You have no evidence of any corrupt behavior. I’m glad you agree.
And what other analogies have you been using in your long posts that aren’t relevant to Article 2, just like your corrupt tangent? Doesn’t that go against one of those long list of rules of logical debate you posted?
I don’t question your sincerity, nor your wish to make UU a better place. However, your replies to my posts tend to be badgering and I don’t wish to have an endless debate with one person on a social media forum. It’s tiring, and it’s important for everyone’s mental health to set personal boundaries.
I’m glad you wish to make UU a better and more inclusive place. I think that’s what most to all UUs want. It would be great for the church if UUs of different perspectives can figure out how to work together, support and listen to each other.
My best,
David
Well, your insistence on asking this meaningless question is merely an avoidance.
Tim, I understand much is being said on this forum so you may have missed a critical comment.
There were only “elections” at GA in 2021, 2022, and 2023 because individual UUs ran by petition to force an election.
I will repeat a comment I shared earlier.
Due to a quirk in the UUA bylaws (Article IX, Section 9.10, subsection (a), “if only one person has been validly nominated for an elective position at large, the persons so nominated shall be declared elected.” Those running by petition seek only to bring much needed election reform at the national level.
The difficulties faced by petition candidates in communicating their message are staggering. I ran in 2021 and asked UU World to cover my candidacy. They published only an endorsement from the UUA Board for my opponent. My virtual booth was denied. Only a convoluted compromise enabled me to have a booth, but my book Used to be UU was banned outright at GA. Another candidate who ran in 2022 at the Portland GA was ejected from the convention center for handing out campaign literature.
Even now, at this GA, there are no elections. Sadly, a sham ballot is on the GA website listing “candidates” who have already been “declared elected.”
We will leave aside the single presidential candidate situation despite the bylaw requirement that “the Presidential Search Committee shall submit no fewer than two nominations for the office of President for an election…” BTW: Delegates at the 2021 GA reaffirmed this need for two or more presidential candidates when they voted down an amendment that would have allowed only a single presidential candidate to be presented.
I could also point to the decision by the Article II Study Commission that ignored the vote of the 2023 General Assembly delegates regarding Amendment 52.
Basically, UU leadership avoids accountability by starving democracy, with its messy processes and debates, by its powers and process and prerogative.
What is most distressing is that there is no outrage over the shredding of democracy from people such as yourself who are knowledgeable and have influence in leadership circles.
You claim democracy is active in the Association, so please share more about why you offer that observation despite contradicting evidence. Please be specific in your response.
Hi Jay,
I do respect that unlike many others in this thread, you put your money where your mouth was and chose to run. Even though I certainly didn’t agree with your platform, you still put it out there for folks to vote on and can respect that.
Again, my question. If this is truly what you see as a/the major issue facing Unitarian Universalism - the lack of competitive elections - why no bylaw amendment to require it? Why should I substitute what you and a small group feel for what the general assembly as a whole has told the NomCom to do? When given the opportunity to affirm or send a message to the NomCom with the competitive petition elections, GA chose to affirm NomCom and the direction the UUA is heading. In every election since the southern regional lead hiring controversy - which is the root of this and not article 2 - general assembly has never elected a protest candidate or issues any kind of rebuke for the direction the UUA is heading. And they have had multiple opportunities. My proof is in actual election results.
I’m not willing to call past delegates to GA too ignorant to know what they were truly voting on.
My job on the NomCom wasn’t to be accountable to people’s varying definitions on what democracy is. It’s to be accountable to what General Assembly tells us to do. They are the boss of the NomCom, And no one else. (I’ve only got like two weeks left on NomCom, thankfully. I never want to do denominational service again after my experience these past ten years.)
And yes, so far the presidential search commission has had two rounds and there have been issues with both rounds, around candidates who once nominated by the commission resign. I think personally think there should be a bylaw to tweak and spell out what happens when a candidate that has been nominated withdraws - does presidential search have to keep looking to find someone else? I dunno. It’s not well spelled out.
Ugh editing these things on an iPhone is impossible after a certain length.
So if your true concern is about democracy in the UUA: how is defeating article 2 going to fix that. It’s not as far as I can tell? What would fix the problems you say are rampant are bylaw changes around elections.
-A bylaw change to require the NomCom to have competitive elections
-a bylaw the spells out to presidential search what happens when a candidate withdraws.
Article 2, pass or fail, won’t change any of that, will it? That’s why I’m so frustrated. Many folks, not all folks, are seeing taking down Article 2 as a way to, well I’m not sure. Send a message to the UUA? It doesn’t have anything to do with the actual text of article 2. I mean doesn’t your election pre-date article 2 votes anyway?
Folks are saying we the NomCom aren’t democratic and acting like “Tamney Hall” but want us to ignore actual votes from General Assmebly. They want us the NomCom to substitute individual voices for the collective will of GA. I don’t see how those messages align.
Just a note of thanks for proving my point, not just to me but to everyone reading this. Much obliged Frank!
@ Tim thank you for your sharing to this discussion. There was question a while back about the editing process. I can’t and don’t speak for the A2SC but I looked through my notes. I’ve been participating in A2 discussions for 3 years and I did not find specific answers on editing but thought I’d share what I had. I apologize if I shared this before higher up in the discussion as it’s now over 200 posts. I can look through my own activity by clicking on my face and seeing my numerous posts which helps a little.
The review/study and even the edit process was explained multiple times in multiple places: open listening sessions, social media, mini assemblies, general sessions, reports, and the UUA discuss site. One of the points that stood out to me was the editing process included going through legal and plan language reviews and to incorporate the amendments passed at GA 2023. This whole process took years of caring and discussing every word with thousands of feedback to get to this point and this proposal. I am in favor of A2 as proposed and Wheeler’s amendment.
Tim, thanks for the thoughtful responses. Let me respond to your second post regarding the relationship between Article II and democracy. I will comment later on your first post. I need to step away for several hours to attend to other business.
The Article II revision process is a result of an unelected Board, and by extension, a Board unaccountable to GA delegate authority, that made in 2017 a fateful decision to declare the complicity of the denomination and Association with white supremacy culture. Then came the Commission on Institutional Change, the Widening of the Circle of Concern, and the charge to the Article II Study Commission to revise all sections of Article II.
The process was not tempered by democratic debate and elections, that may have allowed leaders with different ideas to participate in the decision process. I shared earlier that some, myself included, tried to be included in that decision-making process, but the obstacles to participating in shared leadership are just too steep.
Thus, the current proposed Article II is basically the fruit of an undemocratic process and should be rejected on that basis alone.
Regardless of its pedigree, Article II is simply bad policy and should be rejected on that basis as well.
Supporters of Article II have offered few substantive arguments for the changes. “It was time for a change,” “we need to be ready to live in a multi-cultural environment,” etc.
So, I ask you to take a crack at answering some questions posted earlier in this forum. It would be good to have a substantive discussion.
Last time I checked Jay, I’m not on the Commission that put forth Article 2. Why on earth do you assume I have those answers?
But, and come on Jay, you know that those are leading questions. “Why was it necessary.” Literally none of the words Article 2 picked were “necessary.” The only “necessary” thing was that this process happened at all, as it’s in the bylaws. The principles aren’t “necessary” to Unitarian Universalism, the values aren’t “necessary” to Unitarian Universalism. If you were genuinely interested in a conversation, you wouldn’t have included “why was it necessary.” Because that has a very simple answer, none of it is necessary. That’s not really the level of gotcha question implying a vast conspiracy you think it might be. They proposed a new version of Article 2. It’s up to us as delegates to find if Article 2 revision is more inspiring than the current Article 2. I don’t personally really care why they picked each individual word they picked - I care more about which version of Article 2 speaks better to my understanding of UUism.
You’ll note everything I’ve said around this is specific discussion with you is in reference to Nom Com and elections at General Assembly. Because I’m on the Nom Com - I am somehow not the dictator of all UUA committees out there.
Ok. So let’s talk about this quote:
“The Article II revision process is a result of an unelected Board, and by extension, a Board unaccountable to GA delegate authority, that made in 2017 a fateful decision to declare the complicity of the denomination and Association with white supremacy culture.”
So, it’s not correct to say the Board was unelected. You can say they were not elected in contested elections, sure, but it’s just not correct to say the Board was unelected. Please stop making false statements in the name of rhetoric. I was duly elected by the General Assembly according to its bylaws, and you know it.
Also some of those trustees later faced votes of accountability through the petition process, didn’t they? It’s one reason why you ran, isn’t it? To hold trustees accountable for what they did during the Southern Regional Lead Hiring Controversy? But the GA voted to say they liked where the Board went and is going. You lost. So it’s not true to say or imply that the Board has never faced accountability for what the Board decided on seven or eight years ago - every chance GA has had, they have voted to approve of what the Board did. How many elections need to happen before you accept General Assembly’s will?
You’re encouraging people to defeat Article 2 because “it is the fruit of an undemocratic process.” How does rejecting article 2 actually fix the democratic process?