Opinion: My Conversations With Andy Churchill
Emily Dickinson engages Robert Frost in conversation in a sculpture west of the Evergreens. Photo: Art Keene
Editor’s Note: Beginning this week, Meg Gage and Andy Churchill’s occasional column, Civil Conversations, an original feature of the Amherst Current, will now also appear in the Amherst Indy.
I thought carefully about the invitation from the Amherst Current to engage in a dialogue with Andy Churchill before agreeing to give it a try. I have gone ahead with it because I feel so strongly that we need to do what we can to change the tone and diminish the vitriol that surrounds many of the interactions of Amherst folks on the two sides of the on-going chasm between Amherst Forward loyalists and, what we have been calling ourselves, the progressives. This is a chasm that very much reflects the two sides of the charter campaign, now 4 years ago, and it seems to have deepened since then.
It has been hard for me to hear “our side” characterized in two-dimensional terms like anti-development, NIMBYs, and obstructionist. These are extremely unhelpful and inaccurate characterizations, and they don’t reflect the fact that people on “our side” don’t share one position on much of anything. But these black-and-white characterizations are what a significant number of people in town believe. I also think some on our team have a reflexive response to the Amherst Forward “side,” seeing them as uncritically in the pocket of developers and desperate to expand the tax base regardless of the broader consequences for the town. I doubt that most Amherst Forward followers don’t care about the consequences of development.
That said, I would be delighted if the town’s two Political Action Committees went out of business. Amherst doesn’t need PACs! Most of us in Amherst agree on the big issues – addressing the climate crisis, protecting voting rights, combatting racism, and the war in Ukraine. It’s absurd to invest so much of our energy into two opposing Political Action Committees that deal only with local issues.
I believe if we were able to have calm exchanges about development, early in the planning processes, with differences of opinions communicated calmly and without snarky ad hominem attacks, we might be able to find more common ground. The key is to have those conversations early in the process – just as the Elementary School Building Committee is doing! I believe if we could have these discussions early in the planning stage, rather than as the Council is about to approve a plan, we would have more constructive conversations.
An example is the library expansion. Everyone has been dug in on one side or the other, for the plan or against. I personally believe the plan is too ambitious and projects a library expansion that will be much more than we need and can afford, particularly in light of so many other urgent capital projects and a tight budget. (And the discussions of looming capital projects coming down the road haven’t included a town-wide preschool, a decent Senior Center and the proposed new teen center.) I feel if two or three years ago we had been able to have a calm discussion about specific library needs and reflection on the relative cost of different options, it could have resulted in a more modest and less expensive library plan. But that kind of discussion was impossible, and voters’ only choice was yes or no to the proposed plan.
I have no illusions that the dialogue Andy and I are having is by itself going to change much. But I hope it will inspire other more private conversations about improving the quality of dialogue. This is not a call for compromise nor that we should not advocate energetically and clearly what we believe and want, but instead it’s a hope for active listening and attempting to respect people with whom we disagree.
Years ago, I was a non-violence trainer for civil disobedience actions at military sites and nuclear power plants. One of the central tenets of Kingian and Gandhian non-violence is to ‘separate the doer from the deed.’ That is, criticize the things people say and do, but not the people who say and do idiotic things. It’s not that easy to do! But, it is a good discipline to notice when we say things like “So and so is an idiot”—as good as that can feel! – we might instead say “What that person just said is wrong or idotic or” … whatever.
I invite folks to let me know if you think I’m making a mistake or if you have other thoughts and suggestions. I’m very glad to be doing this dialogue with Andy Churchill who is not an angry person, and while we don’t agree on a bunch of things, he has an open mind, is easy-going and is a good listener.
Meg Gage is the now-retired founding director of the Peace Development Fund and the Proteus Fund, national organizations based in Amherst that organize within philanthropy to advance campaigns related to peace, human rights, and democracy. She is a graduate of ARHS and taught at the high school. She served on the recent Charter Commission and was the chair of the Participatory Budgeting Commission and on the Planning Team of the District One Neighborhood Association (DONA).
Meg, I think you are doing a good thing in engaging with Andy in this manner, especially since you do it so well. I appreciate also that the Amherst Indy and the Amherst Current are collaborating in this way. That strikes me as a potentially great step towards civic engagement.
I agree with you about the PACs, although I have come to believe strongly in the familiar adage, “Think globally and act locally.” Of the big issues you mention, on which you think Amherst residents agree – climate, voting rights and racism – it is easy to agree on principle and, as we have seen, more complicated to agree to local implementation. Amherst has taken important steps thanks to local activism but there is much yet to be done and having candidates who are beholden to PACs is destructive to the sense of collaboration that you advocate.
Two other observations. Social psychologists and others who study both individual personal development and group opinion development make it quite clear that disagreements are often over priorities and preferences before they harden into positions. In Amherst we have seen such priorities and preferences harden into opposing positions prematurely. Meg’s emphasis on having conversations early in the process is an important way of addressing priorities, and I hope this can be done explicitly. Starting with the assumption that “everyone agrees” can dampen the important and nuanced work of looking at priorities and preferences as arenas where coming to agreement is often possible.
Lastly, Meg suggests we separate persons from their opinions and beliefs. She acknowledges that it is not easily done, and I wonder if it should be done. There is usually a lot of “self” invested in beliefs and attacks on positions are often felt as attacks on persons. Rather, I think, we should always acknowledge this investment and develop an “etiquette of controversy” to sustain the civil discourse that Meg and Andy are modeling. This is not easy either but I thank them for making a start.