The Eleventh Commandment is not a sound idea | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: This article originally appeared in the Beaufort Observer.

See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil

    In an article posted elsewhere on this site N. C. GOP Chairman Claude Pope extols some renegade Republicans in Haywood County to adhere to "Ronald Reagan's Eleventh Commandment: Thou shall not speak ill of any fellow Republican." I feel compelled to respectfully dissent.

    First, a bit of history that Mr. Pope would have done well to ponder. The Eleventh Commandment was actually originated by a counterpart of the position Mr. Pope now holds. It was first postulated not by Reagan but by Gaylord Parkinson who was Chairman of the California Republican Party during Ronald Reagan's 1966 campaign for Governor of California. But what is more significant than who originated the idea was the fact that while Reagan adopted it at one point in his career he later abandoned it. Click here to read more about that.

    I'll leave it to others to debate the political efficacy of the Eleventh Commandment. What I would offer is to address the concept of supporting a person because of the position they hold, regardless of their performance in that position.

    I would suggest that the idea of supporting a person simply because they hold an office and not criticizing them because of "who" they are is not only wrong, but does not serve very well the organization or cause in which they function. Consider, for example, whether a principal should always support his/her teachers. Or a superintendent blindly supporting his/her principals. Or consider whether an educator has a duty to support, by withholding criticism the public school system. Consider, if you will, if a law enforcement official becomes aware of abuse under color of law and fails to blow the whistle.

    On the contrary, I would suggest that the imperative is to know where to draw the line between remaining silent and speaking up. There comes a time when failure to speak up is tantamount to irresponsibility.

    My background is in public school administration. I spent 38 years in the business as a teacher, principal, superintendent and university professor teaching educational leadership. Specifically in leadership classes we addressed this issue. It usually comes up in the context of how a school administrator should handle a situation in which a teacher has done something the administrator feels is inappropriate that is known by the public. I typically would pose the issue to the class and ask them how they thought it should be handled. I was always impressed with the wisdom many of those administrator-in-waiting expressed.

    Essentially the most pervasive response was that the teacher should be supported and disagreement not disclosed as long as a greater good would not be served by telling a complainant that you, as the teacher's supervisor, did not agree with the teacher's action. But most students, particularly after some discussion, usually agreed that "there comes a time when it is unprofessional, unethical, immoral and even illegal to support a teacher and not publically disagree, in some circumstances."

    I remember one student who responded to the quandary posed to the class by saying: "I would subscribe to the Twelfth Commandment: Always protect a student from harm by an adult." In other words, there comes a time when you must draw a line and say: "beyond this line I will not support one with whom I disagree." Consider if you will how things would have been different if the Catholic Church officials had not refused to go public with information about abuse by priests of children.

    And to see what damage the "Sweep It Under the Rug" approach does one need look no further than the N. C. Democrat Party.

    Thus, I would suggest to Mr. Pope that he is wrong in trying to tell Republican officials under his leadership to always support a Republican even when you believe the Republican is wrong. There are a multitude of reasons one can give to support this proposition, but suffice it to say that there comes a time when an honest person must draw a line and not accept the unacceptable. And the main reason is that accepting the unacceptable makes the unacceptable acceptable.

    No, I would counter Mr. Pope's argument by suggesting that continuous improvement of an enterprise (a school, a school system, a business, or a political party etc.) indeed requires identifying the unacceptable and correcting it or weeding it out of the organization. Most of us had grandparents who told us about rotten apples. Enough said about that.

    Rather than blind or intransigent allegiance to those in power, I would suggest that the wiser course of action for the Leadership in the Republican Party would be to develop a set of core values that define the Republican "brand" and censure any action that violates those values and defames or diminishes the brand.

    It's not a perfect analogy, but can you imagine McDonalds allowing a franchisee to market his own concoctions rather than sticking strictly to the prescribed menu? McDonalds is built on brand. You know when you go to McDonalds anywhere in the world exactly what you're going to get. That is a major part of their success.

    GOP_3_monkeys

    shadow

    Being a Republican means something. If that meaning is distorted, then the action that so distorts the core values and what the brand stands for should be condemned. And the corollary is that if the same officials continue to distort the brand then, as with the renegade teacher, there comes a time when a line has to be drawn.

    But a fundamental tenet of our culture is that such decisions should not be made lightly. They should be based on solid evidence. And those decisions should not be arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory or an abuse of discretion.

    Thus, I would suggest that Mr. Pope should provide the leadership to develop a strong consensus on what it means to be a Republican and then not only accept but indeed encourage vigorous debate within the organization about the application that definition, based on clearly defined standards, and if the positions, votes, actions or clear message of any party official is contrary to those values then the official should be held accountable for violating those standards.

    Teachers should be supported by their administrators, even when the administrator might not have made the same decision. If the teacher is wrong they should be told why they are wrong and given an opportunity to remedy the wrong. And more often than not such reprimands should be done privately. But if the teacher continues to make the wrong decisions there comes a point at which the administrator must expose his/her disagreement with the teacher.

    Applying Mr. Pope's reasoning, administrators should always support the teacher, even if the teacher is wrong. I can attest to the fact, based on nearly four decades of experience that such reasoning will eventually do irreparable harm to the organization, its mission and culture and consequently to those it should be serving. Why would a political party be any different?

    Allow me to close with another analogy. Suppose our jurisprudence system took the "say no ill of a colleague's position." Enough said on that.

    As Ronald Reagan himself eventually learned and came to accept, The Eleventh Commandment is not a sound idea.
Go Back


Leave a Guest Comment

Your Name or Alias
Your Email Address ( your email address will not be published)
Enter Your Comment ( no code or urls allowed, text only please )




Unemployment Insurance: You Get What You Pay For Editorials, Beaufort Observer, Op-Ed & Politics Whose team are you on?

HbAD0

 
Back to Top