“Think globally, act locally.” That quote is most commonly associated with climate change, suggesting that even if we as individuals don’t have the ability to change the world, we have the ability, and maybe even the obligation, to change our little corner of the world. But might it apply to “climates” of all kinds, and especially the current political climate?
The philosopher William James argued that each of us is an ethical laboratory experiment. Each of our lives, and the choices we make, are hypotheses about what is “right” and “good.” We will never know for sure that our hypotheses are correct, better than alternative hypotheses, but we must be comfortable with the uncertainty. James believed that the aggregate of those lab experiments in ethics would produce “truth” or “good.”
Two recent events have led me to ponder the quote, “Think globally, act locally.”
The first was a conversation several weeks ago with a friend who lives in Florida who was observing the attempts by Republicans in the state of Texas to repeal the 21st century (and maybe even the 20th) on issues including:
overturning certified elections
protecting Confederate monuments
declaring homosexuality an “abnormal” life choice
opposing “red flag” laws as impinging on the God-given right of individuals who are mentally ill to purchase semi-automatic weapons
secession from the United States.
I responded by asking if developments in Texas had made him appreciate how moderate the Republican leaders in Florida are. He, like so many before him, wasn’t amused by my feeble attempt at humor.
The second was a June 25th tweet from Jon Boeckenstedt stating that he wasn’t sure he will attend the NACAC Conference in Houston even though he has already registered. He stated, “Not sure I’ll ever go to a conference in any of those states again.”
I’ve considered the same thing. I don’t have the ability to act globally, to influence a state political climate with policies I find reprehensible, especially since I am not a Texas resident. I can act locally, deciding whether I want to protest those policies by boycotting a conference that benefits that state’s economy. I’m struggling with those options.
Let me make it clear that I am not suggesting that NACAC abandon Houston. Contracts have been signed, and moving the conference would imperil the organization. I also am not presuming to tell anyone else what decision they should make about attending or not.
I reached out to both NACAC CEO Angel Perez and Ffiona Rees, Chair of NACAC’s Board of Directors, to share my concern about whether I want to support the economy of a state that’s gone batshit crazy. Both responded quickly and thoughtfully with similar themes.
Here is Angel’s response:
“This is a very difficult situation, and I am not taking it lightly. I am deeply disturbed by what is happening in Texas and how it has reverberated across the nation. Not only am I disgusted with policies against women, but as a person who has close trans friends, I feel the need to support the community now even more than ever. But I will admit that my perspective has also been informed by the high school counselors in Texas who are writing me and asking me to still host the conference in Texas. They want their students to have a national college fair. They want their students to get the support they need from NACAC, and they also want the opportunity to engage with colleagues on how to stand up and fight their state on these issues. I tend to be someone who wants to stand and fight, and this is one of the (many) reasons we have decided to stay the course in Texas. As one counselor told me last week ‘this isn't the Texas I can be proud of right now, but I hope my colleagues will come and support us in fighting against these terrible policies.’
“I also think of all the marginalized workers that we would unintentionally harm if we do not stay the course and host the conference in Texas. If I learned anything in Seattle this year is that the people we help the most are the low-income workers in the city who have jobs because NACAC is hosting a major event in town.”
Angel also sent a link to an article he had written on this topic last November.
The nature of ethical dilemmas is that there is no clear, easy answer. We must weigh conflicting ethical principles. That is certainly true in this case. Does going to Texas provide global support and sustenance for the extremists running the government, or is going to Texas a statement of solidarity for students and service workers who are just trying to live their lives?
Ethical College Admissions has always been more about raising questions than presuming to provide answers. I have been told that’s my specialty. If you are looking for “the” answer here, you won’t find it. Both Angel and Ffiona acknowledged the deeply personal and difficult nature of the decision.
I think there are two ethical principles that are particularly relevant in this case. The first is the Hippocratic mantra, “Do no harm.” If we can’t fix the problem or make it better, we can at least avoid making it worse. We may not agree on what action that dictates.
The second is the Principle of Double Effect, which recognizes that pursuing an act with good intent may also have unanticipated (or anticipated) consequences that are harmful. Is it ethical protesting governmental policies if it also ends up harming innocent Texans or even NACAC?
It’s hard to think globally, and much harder to act locally.