Hawai‘i’s teachers who talk about controversial subjects are getting in more and more trouble.

Teachers don’t know what to do about it. And they are not getting any help from state officials unless you count backing away, inconsistency, paralysis and fear mongering as help.

That’s because state officials see those problems as legalities. They really should see them as conversations.

Like the situation of Nicole Lasko, a Maui teacher who was confronted by a student’s parents who accused her of being anti-conservative and un-American for trying to teach their child how to use more appropriate words than he used in a class discussion about immigrants.

It’s easy to see Lasko as a victim here, but, really, those angry parents are victims too. All of them are victims of the conventional approaches Hawai‘i’s officials are using that harm instead of help.

Ideas showcases stories, opinion and analysis about Hawaiʻi, from the state’s sharpest thinkers, to stretch our collective thinking about a problem or an issue. Email news@civilbeat.org to submit an idea or an essay.

Read More

What that teacher and her parents really needed was a good way to talk things through in a situation that was up close personal and specific to their time and place.

A conversation-based process rather than a legalistic one.

Here’s what this conversational process would look like. I will use this struggle between that Maui teacher and those parents as an example.

But first, some demythologizing to get you free of your addiction to law as a problem solver.

We Need Messy Conversation

There is First Amendment freedom of speech, and then there is everyday speech.

Freedom of speech may be, as they say, “enshrined” in the Constitution, but it’s of little direct value in the heat of the moment like those Maui folks faced.

Supreme Court freedom of speech decisions are like that distant, beautiful girl you longed to ask to the prom: pristine, lovely but out of your league, too far removed from your life. You can’t afford to spend time thinking about her. You need to find a date to the prom and pronto.

That’s the situation Lasko and the parents faced. It involved something more immediate, something messier, not free speech but everyday speech, the way people talk to each other.

Everyday speech isn’t about free speech in the legal sense. It’s about conversations, which can be full of emotion, even rage.

Everyday speech includes a lot of other messy things, like not listening to or even hearing the other side, as well as a selective belief in freedom of speech if it supports your side.

As freedom of speech expert Jonathan Rauch puts it, “It is just human nature to be more reluctant to defend the speech of people we loathe than the speech from people we love. That is quite natural.”

It may not be pretty, but it’s the way we roll, the way we live, and often the way we decide things, from family squabbles to negotiations between two high-level Department of Education officials.

Most of all, it’s the best approach under the circumstances.

A Better Setting Needed

We don’t know the exact details, but it’s safe to assume that a lot of that kind of everyday talk went on in that Maui classroom conversation.

Lasko thought this was a teaching moment. The kid’s parents thought it was brainwashing.

Lasko was totally surprised, She felt ambushed. “I just never had a parent come back and get so upset about that sort of thing,” she told Civil Beat reporter Megan Tagami.

Hurt feelings, nastiness, surprise, seeing each other as enemies, all in the mix. But where else were they going to turn? Lawyers? Litigation? Not then, and not there. Probably never. Getting good guidance from official policies on the matter? Are you kidding?

Plus, there was a good chance the student would stay in her class, so the links between the teacher, student and mom and dad would continue.

Instead, what they needed were a setting, skills and resources that get at the problem in an everyday way. 

What if, instead of a two-against-one confrontation, the Maui parents and teacher had access to a small group of people, including the involved student, to talk about the issue?

Schools have experience with this sort of process. It’s the Individual Education Plan that’s required for all students with disabilities.

Before Lasko and the parents did anything else, the parents would be offered a chance to talk it out in a meeting with a small number of participants, all of whom have some stake and something to contribute to the situation at hand. It could include the parents, the teacher and the student, and others who know something about these issues and the people involved.

Everyone gets to talk. Everyday speech is encouraged. The goal is mutual problem-solving to see what’s best for the student.

The process is student-centered, not doctrine-centered. It’s not about general principles, but rather about the right here right now: this student, these parents, and that particular teacher.

The meeting requires a facilitator who knows when to encourage everyday speech and when to tamp it down.

The Jigsaw Of Community-Building

The results? There aren’t any limits and many possibilities. The parents could relent and accept what that teacher had tried about their son’s inappropriate language. The teacher might be convinced that she could have done better.

They might still disagree but have a better understanding of each other’s views because the teacher had a chance to explain what she was trying to do in class and the parents talked about their political beliefs.

Or the whole shebang could blow up.

So what? The point is that this is an imperfect process when the alternatives are even more imperfect. Having this approach to turn to is better than having nothing at all, which is what most people involved in these conflicts face. 

Government help is not on the way. Hanging out is a lot better than hanging out to dry.

These kinds of structured conversation also offer broader possibilities. They are a piece of the complicated jigsaw of community-building. It’s a way to strengthen grassroots democracy, and when political institutions are so inept, turning local is an excellent alternative.

It may even be a step toward reducing polarization and creating a fuller culture of decency. Talking story as opposed to talking law.

Law can be part of the story. Free speech law is part of the cultural and political mix that affects our expectations and beliefs. Maybe it came up as part of the conversations that Lasko and the parents had, but just as a tiny part of the mix.

As I wrote this, I began to think about another thing that Lasko and those angry parents shared.

Teaching is hardly about rules and regs. It’s about deciding what to do in the moment in a classroom on a particular day. Teaching is improvisational. It’s an art.

And that’s exactly what parenting is too.