Middle Ground

The juxtaposition of the reading of our mystery article and chapter 4 of the Woodford text was one of great value to our current political standings. It got to me to thinking about just how complacent we have become in our school settings and in the ways we interact and teach, much like the sentiment that was being felt in the 60s and 70s. Judging from the less-than-surprised reactions to just who our mystery author is, Bill Ayers was a member of Weather Underground, and before that, the New Left movement and SDS. WU sought to take down the regime of the Right that was set in place by the U.S. government during the heated era of the Vietnam War, often by anarchistic and militant ways. Yet through it all, their message was to bring reality to a world caught up in unideal, empiracal tendancies. But ironically enough, in an attempt to end the war and violence that the U.S. was bringing down upon the world, Ayers and WU bombed buildings, attacked with arson and vandalism, and even expected civilian deaths as a result of their actions.

We read a great deal about the New Right that has pervaded our society and school systems since the era of the 80s (Reaganomics) and a push towards Conservatism and the creating of absolutes and truths in our political sphere. The New Right pushes for standardization in our public schools, which in turn divides students into haves and have-nots, which divides us as citizens even further into successes or failures, all based in the ideals of a group of conservatives who deem one aspect of music education to be the standard for achievement. What the New Left was trying to do was to tear down what was being built, so that no edifices and statues of our country's "successes" should be seen as accomplishments, be they physical or metaphorical manifestations.

But what happens to the concept of conversation and being able to reach a middle ground between the two extremes? Do we wait for actions to level themselves out, from the great pendulum swings from left to right, or do we take positive action, to try to come together with those who are apart from each other, to reach a common ground? Are these just ideals that we create in our safe haven of higher education? To make it in the real world, one has to have a plan, an ideal, for how they want to live their lives. The WU chose their own methods to advocating change in ways that resulted in death and chaos. But was it wrong for the group to act in the manner that they did? Was any positive change brought because of it? I would have to venture to say that without extremists, the world becomes too complacent in patting themselves on the back for a job well done. I am not an advocate of terrorism, far from it actually-maybe too deep into the pacifist realm- but radical action sometimes brings about radical change. And in this world where we let our lives by governed so completely, who will be the next in line to take a stand, even if it's by violent means?