The Kind of News I Like to Share

When I look online at a newspaper article, it now resembles what I see if I turn on CNN, MSNBC or any other news outlet, bad news! I understand that watching these poorly reported events that are bombarding my psyche with bad news, negatively affects me emotionally and mentally. Do you take stock of how you feel when you are consuming bad news throughout the day? If you do not, think about this. Do you feel extra stressed, more agitated, and nervous now throughout your day? Do you feel paranoid when you go to public spaces? Do you emotionally feel more like you are depleted and do not have more to give because all seems hopeless? I have been in that exact mental place, and you must know that you are not losing your mind, or emotionally there is not anything wrong with you, except that you are feeling like many other people, tired of the bad news.

I want to share something that I witnessed yesterday that I think is positive and encouraging. Yesterday, I attended my first Soil and Water Conservation District meeting. As I continue getting more familiar with this industry, I am meeting some interesting people that care about natural resources like trees, soil, and food. At this meeting were individuals that are related to or are the farmers, ranchers, and growers in North Carolina. With this being my first meeting, I participated as a spectator and watched the meeting to learn the lay of the land in these spaces. In these meetings, people discuss how resources are disseminated among people in their communities. They also discuss how to support families with youth that are seeking employment and scholarly experiences that contribute to their future entry into higher education.

In this room were at least 15 people sitting around a rectangular table and there were four members online. In this group, only a small minority have voting power and I was watching to see how people make decisions; moreover, I was really interested in how diversity is valued in this meeting. These meetings can last one-two hours and they are open to the public. However, I will not use the leaders’ real names, but I want to address an interaction between two individuals. One’s name will be Don and the other will be Sarah. Both individuals were white and appeared to be in their late 30s maybe mid-40s. They were both NC residents, and they are both volunteering their time to discuss topics that are brought forth to the board.

At a certain point of the meeting, they were discussing youth being able to attend a science event at my alma mater NC State University. These initiatives can be costly, so they are addressing how to support families with youth that want to attend. After they discussed the youth that would get support, Sarah raises a question, and her question is about the application the youth must fill out. On the application there is a section for youth to identify their “mother and father” and Sarah raised the concern by asking that the terms “Parent or Guardian” by put in and take mother father away. She shared that people are cared for by grandparents and legal guardians and that we need to be more inclusive of that. Don did not disagree with Sarah, but he shared a concern of his and that is about “pronouns” being on the application. He shared that he disagreed with pronouns being an option on the application and that having this on the application confuses the kids. Sarah disagreed with Don and said that she did not think it confused the kids. Don then said I do not like seeing this on the application and that the kids are too young to be identifying with pronouns as part of their identity. Then it was time for the committee to vote.

I felt nervous because I could tell that Don was not happy about this, and I do not think his point is invalid, but I did not think his points were coming from an informed place about gender identity and gender expression. I also felt some agitation in support of Sarah because I thought she was outnumbered in this discussion, even though it was just these two exchanging words. Keep in mind that we are talking about middle school aged children. As I sat there, wanting to jump in and contribute, I waited to see how this interaction and act of decision making would play out.

Don said, I agree with changing mother father to parent guardian if we strike out pronouns. This is when I was more concerned because this now looks like quid pro quo, meaning, I will vote in favor of your concern if you vote in favor of mine. All I could think about was Sarah is outnumbered. Then they voted on the pronouns. Don made a motion to strike out pronouns and there were four votes being made. This is when I paid attention to the other two committee members that were also white, one was a man (Dave) and the other a woman (Charlotte), and both appeared to be 50 or older. As you read this, I know you can hear my bias, but I am not afraid to share my thoughts in this way because I know that I have a lens that governs how I see people, and my lens also guides how I make judgments. After the motion was seconded, the vote started. Dave was a yes, Charlotte a yes, and Don a yes, but Sarah said No. With the decision not being unanimous, they could not take the pronouns off the application. Don did not look to be happy, but Sarah was not flustered. Sarah maintained the same tone and posture throughout this interaction. The head of the committee said let it be documented that the pronouns will remain on the application.

Sarah made a motion to change the mother father to parent guardian on the application. This is when I thought to myself, it is time for Don’s payback for not getting what he wanted which was for the pronouns to be stricken. After the motion was seconded, the vote started. Dave was a yes, Charlotte a yes, Sarah a yes, and Don said yes. The head of the committee said, let it be documented that we will change the application from mother father to parent guardian.

I felt relieved because the tension was raising in the room and now it calmed, but I also felt encouraged because there was no retributive payback against Sarah for not agreeing with Don. We can all speculate why this happened, and some may even read this and say, this is just about an application. However, what I hope you see is in spaces like these, decisions are made that will impact where a child or an adult will be able to access. Its decision like these that determine how people go to a program that leads to their future success. Also, its meetings like these that most citizens are unaware even happen and that these individuals that can be a neighbor, a church member, or even a politician that make decisions about how one receives or does not receive support for funding.

Just as I shared my bias, I had an assumption that something negative was going to happen, but I was pleasantly shown that people have compassion, and can agree on challenging topics, they need to listen to one another. They also need to be heard. Both Don and Sarah addressed one another without attacks, insults, and raising voices. I witnessed civility yesterday and I am proud to say that people in conservation spaces have an open mind and an open heart. I am clear that while we cannot control each other, we can influence one another. I hope that as you read this, you can see yourself in the two people I highlighted. We all want to be heard, and we all want our way at times. But when we make what we do about people outside of us and about people that do and do not look like us, the solutions may never be simple, but they can be clear. Let us keep working together to make a better world. I appreciate those two individuals that showed me, sometimes we can disagree, but we do not have to disassemble what we are doing. Lastly, no one must be removed from the table.