I have led and participated in a number of faculty meetings over the years as well as committee meetings. I have come to value rules of Parliamentary Procedure such as Sturgis or Roberts as a way of ensuring open discussion of issues, with all being given a chance to share their views in a way that leads to some form of closure. Nothing's perfect but when things have gone awry it is usually because parliamentary procedure has not been followed.
The antithesis of this consists of one person or bloc preventing discussion or action by the majority, not because of a violation of minority rights but rather because they oppose the measure being discussed. We call such things filibusters.
The U.S. Senate did not originate the custom of the filibuster, but in my lifetime it has been used regularly in that body to oppose the granting of full citizenship rights to people of color as well as movement toward encouraging more citizens to vote.
For this reason alone I would be happy to see the filibuster end. Its association with systematic denial of civil rights is an abomination. Deeper to my procedural core I oppose it because of its suppression of discussion and debate, which can only shine a light on our path. I can only wish that the Democratic leadership would move swiftly toward its elimination; let those who miss it state loudly who they are so that we can all know them for what they are.
Comments
Post a Comment