In the last few weeks, I’ve heard my least favorite education talking point return. People keep claiming that a “silent majority” is scared off by those loud activists. But when I hear that claim, here’s what I’m really thinking. Such a claim dampens participation, holds activists to a double-standard, and is woefully culturally unaware of the cultural underpinning of activism.

 

It’s no secret that supports of education reform have long done polling behind the scenes to hone the public message supporting charter schools and other aspects of reform. My favorite public example is the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools’ Charter School Messaging Notebook. But I want to address a talking point not included in that report, one that I continually cringe at. That is, the assertion that there is a silent majority supporting reforms that is too scared to speak publicly and is drowned out by activists. 

Now, we’ve heard that in Camden from superintendent Paymon Rouhanifard, who has used it to claim there is a majority of people in favor of his reforms despite offering no public evidence to back up his claim. As I talk to folks in Newark and Philadelphia, the same exact line has cropped up, that near universal opposition at public meetings is just because the majority is “too scared” to show up as a result of loud opposition. And now, as opposition to PARCC tests is growing, we’re hearing the same thing in other communities in New Jersey. 

Here’s Debbie Tyrrell, the outgoing New Jersey Parent Teacher Association leader, in this John Mooney article: 

But they also said they think the protesting parents are in the minority with their views. “I think there are more in favor, and just afraid to speak out,” Tyrrell said.

I want to speak for a minute about why these claims are so problematic:

1) They are used to silence those who do come to participate.

This is perhaps the thing that drives me crazy the most. Over and over, I hear from educators and administrators how hard it is to get community folks to be more invested in education. Yet, when people do invest their time, they’re brushed off because they don’t fit an ideological agenda.

I know what it’s like to ruin my night by going to a board meeting. I’ve been at a Camden Board of Ed meeting when hundreds of protestors waited for an hour while the board is in closed session, then sat through a two hour board meeting before getting to public comment. If you are that person, who has to find a baby-sitter, comes straight from work, doesn’t have time to grab dinner (or perhaps, for whom dining out is a difficult expense), and when you finally speak, you’re told you’re not a part of some mystery majority that didn’t choose to do those things, would you go through the process again?

There is an Ivan Illich idea that I find myself coming back to time and time again, that newcomers to a community are only capable of communicating with those who share their ideology, culture and background. Claims of a “silent majority” reek of, “I can only hear those who agree with me.” 

2) Claims of a “silent majority” hold one side of the argument to an unreasonable standard while letting their own side off the hook. Protestors need to show their support, while the “silent majority” can assume theirs without evidence.

I know firsthand how tenuous ties can be between activists and their communities. On most issues, even national elections, few folks show up or make their voices heard. But claiming a “silent majority” is assuming that those who don’t show up agree with you. This is really dicey territory, because what we know from voting records, activism in other cities (I studied New Orleans most specifically), and experience here in New Jersey that many folks choose not engage at all. Expecting one side to get those people out to protest, while the other side can claim those people as agreeing is a double standard. I’d like to see those claiming such support pack a Board of Ed meeting, win a mayoral race (hey Newark!), or show publicly the strength of this silent coalition. 

That’s pretty difficult to do. Slightly easier to do is to poll people, and show the results. That’s why the release of this poll by the New Jersey Education Association is noteworthy. The poll, which should be taken with a grain of salt given its commissioning body, shows overwhelming skepticism of the high-stakes testing regime: 

 – 81% of parents are worried that “teachers are forced to teach to the test.” 

 – 80% of parents are worried that “too much of the school year is spent preparing for standardized tests.” 

 – 81% of parents are worried that “tests do not provide a good measure of each individual student.” 

 – 77% of parents are worried that testing “takes time and money from other educational priorities.” 

So let’s review. The people showing up for meetings are furious, and there is some (limited, but with strong majorities) polling data that there is skepticism of tests. But “more are in favor, and just afraid to speak out.” 

3) The second half of this “silent majority” statement is a criticism of activists for being too loud. Jersey Jazzman wrote an absolutely brilliant critique of the racial underpinnings of calling largely African-American activists “shrill” or describing them as “shrieking.” Bob Braun has done the same. 

I want to add a few of my own thoughts to these excellent arguments. The first is that this is another manifestation of the problem I addressed above, of not being able to hear those who come from different backgrounds. I show clips of the famous “brown babies” speech addressed to Cami Anderson, or of activists’ speeches in New Orleans, all the time in class. When I do, there are sharp divides among students who find them “shrill” or even threatening, and those who find them powerful and inspirational. Unsurprisingly, those divides happen on race and class lines.

And that speaks to the deeper issue. Part of the reason this particular form of protest evolved to be loud is because communities learned they weren’t listened to when quiet. There is something pernicious about criticizing a community for not being “polite,” when simultaneously not listening to the activists who are polite. 

A quick example from Camden. Last year, hundreds of high school students walked out of class to the Board of Education building to protest the firing of over 200 Camden teachers. It was amazing, inspirational, and non-violent in a way that had even the reporters around me saying they hadn’t seen anything like it in Camden for decades. But did such an amazing outpouring of support for teachers lead to a single teacher not being fired? Did it lead to any noticeable change in trajectory? No. It lead to a series of town halls in schools, in other words, opportunities to be polite, then be ignored. 

Now, with the Camden School District likely facing similar budget problems (I’ve only heard rumors), and likely to lay off even more teachers this year, students will be faced with an even starker choice. They have learned that in a state-run school district like Camden, peaceful, civil-rights styled protests such as walk-outs are not enough to impact the administration. What will they do? Already, at 16 and 17, these students have learned that they will have to be louder to be heard by those with power over them. 

So when I hear someone claim that there is a silent majority that is too scared to show up, I hear those three things. I hear someone who is shaming and discouraging community members who sacrifice to participate. I hear a claim that requires evidence, which activists are required to provide, but the alleged silent majority does not. And I hear someone who does not understand the history of activism, and sees strong minority leaders as “shrill” rather than as responding to a history of being ignored.