MORAL LEADERSHIP: A STILL, SMALL VOICE

Transcription

1 MORAL LEADERSHIP: A STILL, SMALL VOICE Frederick McGuire Brisbane Polo Club; 26 May 1999 A Breakfast Address for the Centre for Leadership and Management in Education and the Professional Development Network Prepared by Diana Beere Griffith University Introduction Fred McGuire was a District Court Judge for 24 years, for the last five of which ( ) he was President of the Children s Court of Queensland. Now retired, he nevertheless continues his ongoing campaign for acceptance of what he described in his first Annual Report as President of the Children s Court of Queensland in 1994 as the moral imperative [for] a restoration of ordinary goodness. At the breakfast gathering at the Brisbane Polo Club on 26 May 1999, Judge McGuire focused on the crucial role of moral leadership in sustaining a civil society; and in doing so he raised issues of vital concern to educators. His audience s interest in exploring them further was evident in the buzz of lively talk afterwards, and the apparent reluctance of many participants to break off their discussions and return to their separate institutions and duties. Indeed it seemed that their enthusiasm, contrasting as it did with the bleak picture invoked by the judge s opening comments, was a signal of the renewed optimism that he had evidently sought, through his address, to promote. The current context: Social malaise Reviewing the moral condition of contemporary western societies, Judge McGuire remarked on a prevailing sense of perplexity and moral and spiritual exhaustion, and an apparent loss of confidence in the future of society. He noted a widespread belief that, having abandoned many of their traditional values, western societies are currently living off their moral capital and heading, apparently irreversibly, for moral bankruptcy. There is no shortage of evidence to support such a view in the long and familiar list of contemporary social problems listed by the judge violent crime, substance abuse, child neglect, family breakdown and so on and the apparent lack of governmental will and/or power to address them. The judge did not dispute the existence or the seriousness of such problems. Indeed, he noted that, in Queensland as elsewhere, the juvenile crime rate commonly perceived as an indicator of the health of a society has been steadily increasing in recent years. Moreover, while the costs of the various measures designed to address the problem of juvenile crime are also escalating, the measures themselves have so far achieved little success. However, there is nothing very new about a society beset by moral and social problems: as Judge McGuire pointed out, family violence, drug abuse, poverty, social injustice and crime have existed as social problems throughout history. There is little point, then, in seeking to restore a nostalgically remembered Golden Age ; it never existed. What is new and perhaps most alarming in contemporary society, the judge proposed, is the background of despair against which these social problems are now set. Moreover, what became increasingly apparent as he developed his argument is that it may well be that one of the most serious impediments to the goal of restoring ordinary goodness is precisely this failure of optimism and faith in the future. The role and power of governments Although the American President Franklin D. Roosevelt affirmed, in 1932, his belief in the United States Presidency as pre-eminently a place of moral leadership, it seems that subsequent political leaders have tended to distance themselves from any moral agenda, apparently in the belief that, in a secular society, good government is somehow independent of moral leadership. Rejecting this view, Judge McGuire commended the recent (re)emergence of political interest in promoting family and community values and emphasising the links between rights and responsibilities. Governments and political leaders, he believes, are now beginning albeit still somewhat tentatively to recognise the crucial importance of moral leadership to a society s continued welfare, and to accept their responsibilities for displaying such leadership Centre for Leadership and Management in Education, Griffith University 1

2 At the same time, the judge emphasised, it is important to recognise the limitations of governments, even together with their laws and law enforcement agencies, in addressing the social problems that currently threaten the welfare of society: governments cannot change people and make them good. Morality cannot be, and never has been, enforced by law, because although they might deter people from doing evil, laws and their enforcement cannot make people good. From this perspective, it seems unlikely that oft-advocated strategies such as more extensive policing and harsher penalties for law-breakers will provide any genuine long-term solution to the symptoms of contemporary social malaise. Although they might yield relatively fast results in terms of reducing the frequency of offending among those already motivated to do so, such crime control strategies typically have little impact in terms of the longer-term goal of reducing the supply of motivated offenders (Weatherburn & Lind 1998). Accordingly, Judge McGuire maintained that conventional methods of dealing with crime generally and juvenile crime in particular have failed and will continue to fail: other approaches that move beyond the policy areas of law enforcement and sentencing are needed. Evidently, while moral leadership at the level of government is vitally necessary, and its re-emergence is welcome, it is insufficient on its own to bring about and sustain a reversal of current patterns of social disintegration. Where, then, might enduring solutions to contemporary social problems be found? Judge McGuire s response to this question drew on the work of Jonathon Sacks, who suggests, in Faith in the Future, that the survival of modern civilisation depends on an ecology of hope. In developing and nurturing such an ecology, he believes, the three most powerful assets of a society are family, community and religious faith. Religious faith To take the last of these first, Judge McGuire made it clear that he was not advocating any particular set of religious beliefs, or even religion as such. The point he stressed is that, in order to survive, a society must be imbued with a unifying philosophy or generally agreed moral code of some kind. While western civilisation was built on a predominantly Judeo-Christian ethos, he pointed out that other civilisations have been built, and have thrived, on other philosophies that have served similar unifying functions. From this perspective, what is most problematic, perhaps, is not simply that we as a nation have abandoned many of our traditional values. Rather, it is that those values that have been rejected as no longer appropriate perhaps with good reason have not been replaced by others that can serve a similar unifying function. We have betrayed the principles of a cohesive social order, the judge argued, in the mistaken belief that somehow a society can survive even as its members also understand themselves as fully independent individuals. The very notion of moral leadership becomes problematic in the absence of any unifying moral code; yet at the same time it also seems unlikely that any moral code can serve a unifying function in the absence of moral leadership. The importance of a unifying philosophy was highlighted when the judge suggested that, in order to better understand the causes of expanding fractures in the social system, it might be more useful to ask why (most) people observe the law, rather than asking why (some) people do not. Whilst wary of being overly simplistic about the highly complex phenomenon of crime, Judge McGuire proposed that the answer to the former question is ultimately this: those who abide by the law do so because they have learned to understand and share with other members of society the broad set of values and moral principles that underpin that law. Consequently, the judge believes, a good society has no more important role than the moral education of the young. He pointed out that qualities such as honesty, integrity, compassion, self-discipline and perseverance are not innate in human beings; they are values that have traditionally served a unifying function in western (and many other) societies, and as such they must somehow be learned by members of those societies. Family Among the three powerful assets identified by Sacks, the family is pre-eminent in terms of its potential to influence young people and contribute to their moral education; as the judge pointed out, it is not governments that raise children, but parents and families. He argued, however, that families are in crisis: although undoubtedly the primary responsibility for the moral education of children rests with parents there has been of late a fairly widespread abdication of that responsibility. It is commonly believed that the escalating juvenile crime rate is largely attributable to this perceived failure of parental and family responsibility and a consequent decline in discipline within the home Centre for Leadership and Management in Education, Griffith University 2

3 It is perhaps debatable whether the failure of parents and families in regard to moral education and leadership is best understood as cause or symptom of current social malaise: in the absence of any broadly unifying social philosophy, how are appropriate and coherent standards of discipline, such as would promote a sense of social responsibility among young people, to be determined by parents and families? Moreover, there is increasing evidence to suggest that poor parenting is a significant mediating factor in the relationship between economic and social stress and juvenile crime, rather than a simple cause, in itself, of moral decay; and economic and social stresses are known to have a strongly negative impact on the parenting process (Weatherburn & Lind 1998). However, whether the failure of the family to provide moral leadership and education for young people is understood as cause or symptom, there is increasing acceptance of Judge McGuire s view that families need help if the social problems of our time are to be addressed in any enduring way. Thus, in policy terms at least, the Australian Government has come to recognise parenting education as a sound long-term investment in revitalising and strengthening families and communities, and has moved to fund a series of initiatives to support parent and family education (Frederico et al 1999; Truss 1999). At the same time there seems, so far, to be little serious support for a more coherent preventative approach to parenting education such as that supported by the judge in an earlier article (McGuire 1997) that would incorporate education for socially responsible parenthood explicitly into the compulsory school curriculum. No doubt some educators would strongly oppose such an approach, arguing with some justification that society already expects too much of schools and teachers. Indeed, Judge McGuire conceded that teachers might well view any move to add further to their responsibilities, by involving them in crime prevention strategies, as an unwarranted imposition on their already onerous duties. Yet at the same time it seems clear that the family is not the only social institution with responsibilities for moral leadership and the moral education of young people. Community No doubt it was partly in acknowledgment of his audience of educators that Judge McGuire focused specifically on schools, rather than the broader community, in considering the issue of moral leadership in relation to the third powerful asset identified by Sacks. In doing so, however, he gave implicit recognition to the school as a social institution of vital importance within the community, second only to parents and families in its potential to influence the social development of young people. The judge s comments on what he perceives should be the aims of education strongly suggest that, in his view, rather than being an add-on to compensate for the failure of the family in recent times, moral education always has been or always should have been a vital aspect of the work of schools. Quoting distinguished Australian educator James Darling, the judge proposed that the aim of education is to nurture civilised men and women, but observed that we are not notably achieving our objective. Implicit in the remarks that followed was the suggestion that it is not only parents and families that have abdicated their responsibilities for the moral education of recent generations of young people, but schools and teachers as well. Drawing on the story of Sir Thomas More s commitment to moral principle as the ultimate purpose towards which the practice of the law should be directed, Judge McGuire argued that when divorced from any moral dimension, school education is reduced to a mere set of techniques by which children are equipped with the factual knowledge and skills they need to be productive workers. Yet properly understood, he suggested, education comprehends much more than this: most crucially, it is about enabling young people to take their places as moral, responsible citizens of the world. Identification and intervention In terms of identification and intervention, it is Judge McGuire s view that schools could make important contributions to crime prevention and to overcoming other social problems. Their intensive and long-term contact with young people means that they are strategically well placed for early identification of potential problems, and equally well placed to become involved in early intervention programs. Given that most of the early predictors of juvenile delinquency for example, truancy, and aggressive and anti-social behaviour patterns are evident in the school context, the judge argued that it is time that serious consideration was given to developing the potential for schools, families, and government and community agencies to work more closely together in the areas of early identification and intervention. Civics education Judge McGuire advocated the explicit inclusion of Civics, which he defined as the science of the rights and duties of citizens and of civic affairs in the compulsory school curriculum. Acknowledging that this is by no 1999 Centre for Leadership and Management in Education, Griffith University 3

4 means a new idea although in his view it is a much neglected one he pointed to the example of Napoleon s Civil Code, which asserted the necessity for French schools to teach children a uniform moral code in order to fulfil the responsibility given to all educational institutions to produce law-abiding citizens. In the light of the issues raised throughout the judge s address, there are a number of questions that might be raised in regard to this approach. For example: Should citizens be unquestioningly law-abiding? Do people not commit crimes because they are taught the law and taught to abide by it, or because they understand and are willing to live according to the values that the law is intended to embody? What do the answers to these questions suggest about how civics education might best be approached? Ultimately, these questions are related to more familiar, and typically vexed, questions for schools and teachers particularly, perhaps, secular schools and teachers of subjects that fall under the umbrella of social education: To what extent should schools be involved in values education? Given that some degree of values education is unavoidable, because teachers indeed, all people can hardly avoid demonstrating values in some way or another in the course of their everyday activities, what or whose values should be learned, and how? Such concerns were evidently in the minds of at least some members of Judge McGuire s audience, as their subsequent comments and questions illustrated. One listener, for example, pointed out that schools and teachers have become increasingly wary in the area of values education in recent years. This, he suggested, was largely in response to criticisms of their perceived tendency to privilege the values of the white middle class at the expense of those of other social groups that make up Australian society. Yet it was these same middle class values that the judge seemed, implicitly, to be advocating when he affirmed the values of ordinary decent people practising decent standards. Another listener questioned whether it is possible, in secular schools, to provide a sound moral education, or whether such an education is only possible within a religious framework. As indicated above, the judge s view is that what is crucial is a framework provided by a unifying philosophy, which need not necessarily be one based in religious belief; but clearly, there are other views on this issue. A third question concerned whether, in the light of the judge s earlier comments that the ends of the law are not to be learnt from legal texts alone... [and] we cannot learn the law by learning the law, civics education is sufficient on its own to provide a sound moral education, even when undertaken in the context of a unifying philosophy. The answer to this question is perhaps best illustrated in Judge McGuire s comments on the still, small voice of moral leadership. Moral leadership: The still, small voice Judge McGuire drew on the Old Testament story of Elijah (specifically, 1 Kings 19:11-12) to explain his understanding of moral leadership. He suggested that just as Elijah is shown that God is not to be found in the whirlwind, the earthquake or the fire, but in the still, small voice; so, too, moral leadership is not necessarily to be found in the trappings of overt power and authority, whether political, religious, military or other. Moral leadership, the judge proposed, can be displayed and indeed is vitally necessary at all levels of society. Notwithstanding Roosevelt s famous remarks concerning the presidency, Judge McGuire suggested that moral leadership can and arguably must be the domain of ordinary people as well as leaders. Moral leadership, after all, is about exemplifying excellence, Judge McGuire asserted. This concept of moral leadership can be understood to involve actively demonstrating, in and through one s everyday life and activities, a genuine commitment to the values that one takes as one s own. In the context of school education, this would seem to translate to something more than adopting best practice approaches to teaching and learning across the curriculum: it suggests the active and ongoing modelling, by school leaders and teachers, of best practice in morally and ethically responsible citizenship, in accordance with the unifying philosophy of the school community. There may be times, the judge observed, when moral leadership whether within or beyond the school context might entail making a stand against the tide of popular opinion, or displaying what might be termed ordinary heroism. However, most commonly, he suggested, moral leadership is not demonstrated noisily or overtly, but simply and quietly in daily life, as a still, small voice Centre for Leadership and Management in Education, Griffith University 4

5 An ecology of hope Despite the bleakness of his introductory images of a society in decay, Judge McGuire s address concluded on a positive note. He reminded his audience that while it is important not to be blind to social problems, it is equally important to recognise that the whole picture of contemporary society also includes many examples of beauty, happiness, love, unselfishness and honesty which might themselves be understood as examples of the still, small voice at work. These examples, together with the long lesson of history... that beyond every warning of catastrophe there is the distant horizon of hope, serve as grounds for the judge s unshakeable faith in the future. Indeed, even in his opening remarks, the judge had mentioned another reason for maintaining such faith: the evidence that more and more people, especially young people, are searching for enduring solutions to current social problems, presumably in the belief that such solutions are possible. More than these reasons for optimism, however, the judge stressed the importance of principled rejection of despair: the still, small voice of moral leadership is necessarily underpinned by optimism. Jonathon Sacks, the judge noted, put it thus: in those who undertake to guide us through the wilderness, pessimism is an abdication of responsibility, and we must reject it. As the judge had already made clear, those who undertake to guide us through the wilderness need not only be those that are conventionally regarded as leaders. Thus, in the context of the school, those who reject pessimism and choose to demonstrate moral leadership in their everyday lives in other words, those who accept what Judge McGuire perceives as the moral imperative to work towards a restoration of ordinary goodness should include not only school leaders, but all teachers, support staff and other members of the school community. Ultimately, the judge s argument suggests, it will also include students. References Dempster, N. & Beere, D. (1996). Towards a comprehensive approach to principals professional development: A balancing act. British Journal of In-service Education, 22, Frederico, M., Davis, C. & Barber, J. (1999). Growing up in Australia: The role of parents in promoting positive adolescent development. Canberra: Department of Family and Community Services. McGuire, F. (1997). Moral leadership: A still, small voice. The Practising Administrator, 2, 4-8. Marginson, S. (1993). Education and public policy in Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Truss, W.E. (1999, February). Address to the Fifth Meeting of the National Council for the Prevention of Child Abuse, Hobart. Accessed at: Weatherburn, D. & Lind, B. (1998). Poverty, parenting, peers and crime-prone neighbourhoods. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice No. 85. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology Centre for Leadership and Management in Education, Griffith University 5