Feminist Justice--September 15, 1993
Dear People,
YOUR RIGHT TO CONFIDENTIALITY AND PERMISSION TO PUBLISH WHAT YOU WRITE
You have a right to keep what you write for this class between you and me.
Just write "Hal's eyes only" on your paper, and I will keep the paper
between us. If you don't mind others reading your paper, PLEASE GIVE ME
TWO COPIES of your essays.
Otherwise, increasingly, I want us to share what we are writing with each
other. Some of you will have given me three essays already and hence be
eligible to start editing others' essays when essays come in next Monday.
Put the author's name and yours on the list I leave by the essays, and
please return it to me, edited and commented by you as I have done with
your essays, by the end of Thursday (hand it to me in my office, slip it
under the door, leave it in my mailbox in Sycamore 301). I'll respond to
you and the author jointly by class the following Monday. You get a
paper's credit for a satisfactory (i.e., conscientious and respectful)
edit and comment. Editing teaches a lot about writing itself as long as
you are also writing yourself. Try some of each. And reading each
other's papers is a good way to get to know each other.
We co-editors of the book manuscript I've been writing you about are
thinking we might want to include a liberal supply of what you write in
the text. We'll need your individual permission for this in writing, of
course, and of course too, you are NOT required to give permission at all.
Next Monday, I want to talk some with you about the form of the permission
and about where the proceeds from the book ought to go. It is
administratively impossible to pay authors for their contributions. On
the other hand, if we are asking you to volunteer your writing for the
text, you deserve a say in how the royalties from the book get spent. I'm
also thinking that we would understand that unless you expressly invited
us to use your name, any of the personal stories of abuse you chose to
offer for the text would be published anonymously. Let's discuss this on
Monday, perhaps in the latter part of the class.
NEXT MONDAY IN CLASS, YOU RAISE THE ISSUES IN A FREE DISCUSSION
The classes we have just had have been pretty highly structured, and
pretty highly directed by me, Debbie, Sandy, Keith, Mary and so forth.
It's time for a change of pace. This time in class, let's spread
ourselves around a circle and start the discussion wherever you want.
This week I got essays from more than half the class (16 of 29). As you
will see when you begin to read one another's essays, you can find out a
lot of what people are thinking in class from reading what they somehow
don't manage to speak up and say otherwise. That has happened for me this
week. Here's my summary of what I have read, and some thoughts on issues
y'all raise. You can just read it to see whether it makes you want to say
something in the discussion.
This time, I especially want to listen more than preach.
YOUR SHOCK AT HOW COURTS (DON'T) WORK
Virtually all of you wrote that this was the effect of the readings and of
Debbie, Keith and Sandy's stories on you. One positive quality I find
liberally in criminal justice majors is a sense of civic duty--wanting to
improve community life. Many of us are thinking of policing or law as a
path to improving community life.
One of you writes about what you are feeling this way: "I don't want to
be ashamed of the system I work in." Many of you speak of "the criminal
justice system," although the cases we are discussing involve a
combination of failures to act in both criminal and civil courts, in what
many convicts call the "just-us system."
More than that, from my advantage at least you have a youthful
determination to set things right that I have lost with age (whether for
better or worse, who knows). Repeatedly you write of making sure that
people in and around the courts carry out their legal duties to examine
evidence and act on it. A couple of you are honest enough to admit that
you are not sure the parents you are hearing are blameless in the
situation, but I infer that all of you think that the national pattern of
response in these cases shows one helluva lot of people just aren't doing
their duty.
Last class we were in the mode where I asked the questions, you answered,
and I added a final word before going on to someone else or my own next
question. I no longer try to fight this process once it is underway, but
it does set me to thinking what kind of a trip I'm laying on my
"audience." As we talked and I occasionally tuned out to reflect on what
was happening, I noticed that you who spoke kept brainstorming
constructive ideas for dealing with the shocking problem, and I kept
saying, in effect, "Naw, that won't work." Sorry about that. The fact is
that I do believe that THE ENERGY YOU ARE PUTTING INTO THINKING ABOUT WHAT
THE CHILDREN WANT AND DESERVE is THE CHANGE REQUIRED TO PROTECT CHILDREN
WHEREVER YOU MIGHT END UP WITH CHILDREN...or with the adults abused
children have become.
A number of you draw the same lesson I do: What matters most is listening
to children, giving them credit for knowing what they want and need,
acting on how and why we find they cry. That's what some people call
"consciousness raising." On the one hand it means that every time we
convey to a child or to adults--especially in the presence of children--
that they are "too young" to understand what is happening to them and
decide what is best for them, we reinforce the attitude that says it's too
messy and unnecessary to listen to the cries of the children in these
cases. On the other hand, it means that simply by feeling it personally
necessary to speak up on behalf of children and listen to children
seriously ourselves, we can end up anywhere in the system and be a part of
making the system work the way we want it to. The important thing, I
believe, is to know what you yourself think is important, rather than
relying on your bosses to decide what is important for you. Beyond your
own drive to be sure children are heard as occasions arise, there is
admittedly a complex art to how to get people around you to listen as well
rather than to regard you as part of their problem.
Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me in every case we are
considering thus far the children themselves take the lead in not wanting
to be left alone with some adult. Shouldn't we listen? Why not among
ourselves at least grant children the right to neutral shelter when they
want a break from being alone with any adult? Why does this notion of a
child's basic right to decide whom to be left alone with threaten us so
much (at least I find that it does)?
You may already have something else in mind to raise in discussion, or
maybe these questions of mine have provoked some thoughts for you. Tell
me about it...
Love and peace, Hal