Seeing What We Want to See
In a management training course years ago, we were shown a video. The instructor asked us to count the number of times people in the video passed a ball amongst themselves. Most folks in the class counted the same number of passes. None of us saw the man in the brown bear suit walking through the people in the video who were passing the ball around. When the video was replayed and we were cued to watch for it, he was completely visible. As the Simon and Garfunkel song says: “a man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest.” We were primed to look for something else. And so, it is with the Article II Revision.
The direction we were given when the Revision was initially presented asked us to focus on just the Revision. The Study Commission composed primarily of minorities asked us to “Read it the first time to observe how it makes you feel. Read it a second time, observe what it makes you think. Finally, read it a third time before thinking about any suggestions.” We were never asked to compare it to what we had. We were asked to focus on the passes of the ball, and we missed the man in the bear suit. Or at least we never talked about him. It was easy to get caught up in the specifics of words and phrases and miss the underlying premise for the Revision.
Misdirection by the UUA
The writers of the Article II Revision used certain phrases which are key to its message. The writers had their focus with their biases. This is not to say we can’t agree with a particular statement or phrase. Rather, a majority white person would not have a reason to write such phrases. “Heal historic injustices”, “accountable to one another”, “work to repair harm and damaged relationships”, “covenant to learn from one another in our free and responsible search for truth and meaning”, “openness to change is fundamental to our UU heritages.” These phrases are the pleas of the marginalized to be heard in a church that is at least 85% white and presumed deaf.
But we are not deaf, and we are not heartless. The whole Article II Revision process gave UUs an opportunity to hold a mirror to ourselves, but it was not allowed to happen freely. We were never given the opportunity to understand the reasons for the changes, how specific actions and words contribute to hurt feelings. We were never given the opportunity to understand how widespread these problems were in our communities. Instead, a defensive protection of the Article II Proposal emerged allowing autocratic actions, censorship of dissenting views, shunning of dissenters, and a reluctance to engage in back-and-forth discussion. Fears of not being heard or overruled or fears of being labelled racist resulted in a poorly understood document that now serves as the basis of our faith.
It’s Now Up to Congregations
As we now move into utilizing the new Article II, many congregations will struggle to assess if it adequately articulates the basis for a liberal religion that suits their needs. Does it provide room for all the many issues, causes, and beliefs that their congregants hold? Some congregations will find the Rewrite too restrictive, focusing so prominently on dismantling racism. Some will find the implementations defined by the Article II rewrite too harsh, or being held accountable too subjective. Some will decide it is better for their congregations to continue using the 7 Principles and 6 Sources, which the UUA allows. Unfortunately, all the RE material their children will use and all the UUA published articles in UU World and UUA Websites their congregants will read will be focused on the new Values and the words of the new Article II. These congregations will find themselves out of step with the rest of UU.
Can they live with that? Will they begin to question the benefit of staying in the UUA? After all, why continue paying dues to an organization that no longer provides them with what they need? Time will tell. So, at some point in the future, when we look at what has happened from the perspective of the leaders of the UUA and the writers of the revised Article II, perhaps the harm they were so concerned with was not the problem. Maybe it is they who were focused on the wrong thing. Maybe it is they who missed the man in the bear suit, as congregation after congregation departs.
Two Important Things
Subscribe to Comments
Subscribe to comments to follow the comments from other readers.
Join the Fifth Principle Project. It’s free. The Fifth Principle Project is an organic grassroots initiative to gather into community Unitarian Universalists who want to reinvigorate the right of conscience and renew the democratic process in the governing of our denomination.
I’m impressed and delighted with this intelligent, insightful, and articulate piece. The voice of a true UU. How refreshing. Thank you, Steve Myles!
The posts and discussions on this site remain a lucid path through a dark, troubling journey. I have said thanks so many times. And once again, I wish to give thanks for keeping the heart of our faith alive. John Eichrodt
John, a great deal of work is devoted to maintaining this website, so we thank you for your kind words.
Yes Steve, thank you for your hopefulness. Yet methinks that the darker gravity of the situation is either behind the Beat Suit or in the room next door … a room that no one (seems) to have the key to. The 20% that got disenfranchised at GA 2024 represent 40% of the income stream. By 2030, 2035 — UUAism and the PLM (Pure Love Movement) and the Jetpig RE curriculum will be out of economic steam. At 150,000 members with half as many children…that number will soon be 100,000 with even fewer children. It’s really just an Odd-Bodkins Club at… Read more »
Steve Myles has been one I considered a logical and relatively principled dissenter over these last couple of years. This piece with its overtly racist notation that the A2SC committee had a majority of minorities as a way to attempt to discredit it – totally gratuitously – and list of things privileged, upper middle class, fragile white people would never say changes my opinion. This list is precisely what any white person concerned about justice, human equality, and a multi-racial, multicultural society would say. Such smug white condescension is pure racism as Finley if he were still here would quickly… Read more »
Don, why would “we” remove your comments or opinion? Some of the terms automatically applied to anyone who disagrees is part of the ad hominem and illogical bases of the Social Justice Warriors. If I feel that your worldview is lacking or downplays math, logic, science, or others areas for which I have a greater interest, then should I label you as anti math, or logic phobic? If I feel that humanistic social problems such as born with a hair lip, low talent , or IQ, chronic health problems, etc. are bigger concerns in our meritocracy than LGBITQ issues, does… Read more »
Don, your comments that websites that did not fall in line with the UUA’s dismantling of the Seven Principles are “vitriolic anti-trans and racist white fragility” begs us to have you review our Code of Conduct. Expressly, “We do not accept obscenities, threats, or ad hominem attacks. (Play the ball, not the person.)”
We wish to maintain an open space for dialogue and discussion. You are encouraged to participate so that a wide diversity of ideas can be shared. But be mindful of the good spirit and dignity of those with whom you disagree.
Don: I don’t think it is the most charitable interpretation that this piece by Steve Myles is “racist”, and certainly not “pure racism” and certainly not “vitriolic”. If I had been asked to suggest edits on this piece, I might have suggested to Steve Myles that he remove the statement about the racial makeup of the Commission, because I’m not sure how relevant it is, and it is subject to misinterpretation. It really is not the key point of the piece, in my opinion. A more charitable interpretation of what Steve Myles is trying to say is possible. For example,… Read more »
I’m afraid you have simply misunderstood Steve’s piece, or are deliberately maligning it, and with it Steve’s character. Nowhere does Steve even suggest that a preponderance of minorities is what discredits the A2 re-write. Steve and all members of the Fifth Principle have always supported the efforts of minorities to be heard. It is what our embrace of the Principles, particularly the first, means to us. It has been our position all along that support for minorities did not in any way require gutting the core of our faith. This, in addition to his expression of dismay, is what he… Read more »
I have my own issues with the Article II Revisions, which I feel wasted valuable opportunities for synthesis and compromise towards the end of the process. I do think the changes seem to focus on one particular interpretation of language/values, resulting in such (to me, very un-UU) claims as that “reason” harms marginalized people. (This is directly in contravention of my own experiences in life, and indeed, omitting the value and processes of reason would prevent virtually all my own participation in governance, representation, and right relations within my own congregation.) This may indeed be part of what drives a… Read more »
As a gay man being told I need to step back and examine my bias towards certain genitalia I can state that this Trans ideology is nothing more than a homophobic, misogynistic cult. I am not talking about the small group of people who suffer from dysphoria and just want to live their life presenting in a way that brings them relief. Those people, like all people’s, should have the same protections and rights. There is a huge difference between the transsexuals I grew up knowing and loving and this radical, woman and homosexual erasing cult. It is not hate… Read more »
Thank you Don. Your comment is much appreciated and your analysis seems helpful and accurate.
Well said Steve. I recall that training video and the bear walking in the back of the room and behind the ball passers. It caught my eye so I missed the accurate count of actual passes of the ball. As such I may have missed some of the UUA leadership’s actions and statements since 2017 at the GA in New Orleans when they introduced the WSC strategy. But I saw the bear at that GA and it kept surfacing right up to the A2 vote in 2024.
I belong to a quite small congregation in South Texas. At last count we had 30 members signed up and pledging. Now we have fewer. We struggle because Winter Texans attend from November to March, that is the season, but not everyone stays for the whole season. Many of our WTs are generous. They tithe at home (up north we call it) and when they attend our little fellowship. It appears we have opted to stay with the original principles, the hymnals and our original UU beliefs and values. The lack of comparison of the new with what we had,… Read more »
This post is very close to my thoughts. I am taking a wait and see approach to how this revision impact my specific congregation. So far the impact has been minimal. But I already have stopped reading UU World, and I expect I will become increasingly disinterested in the materials produced by UUA. Over time, we may decide that the services provided by UUA are not that valuable, and we may gradually move away. I’m trying to withhold judgement for now.
I think Steve has done a good job exposing the “bear”. I think Don is looking too deeply and seeing things that aren’t there. Either way this perspective is valuable. Thanks for providing this opportunity for reflection.
Steve made explicit comments about race, and the majority of commenters here say that they “aren’t there.”
Kerry: I don’t think the commenters have said that the comments he made about the racial makeup “aren’t there”. Rather, they are disputing that they reflect “pure racism”, which is what Don said. I think Don’s comment is an over-reaction that polarizes people, and sidesteps debating the main points Steve made, which are independent of the comments relating to racial makup of different groups. You said in your prior comment that the comments are “problematic”. I think that is more accurate. I would say they are problematic because: (1) It is irrelevant, or should be irrelevant, what is the makeup… Read more »
The composition of the Article II Study Commission was purposely chosen to center the writings of marginalized UUs to address dismantling racism. This placed it in a heretofore unique and uncomfortable realm. We may wish that issues of race could have been made irrelevant, but they were not. Collectively, (including myself) we proved ourselves incompetent in handling them. We were never sure if dissent would be taken as disrespectful of the writers or critical of their writing. So, we avoided discussions. We avoided publishing dissents. We became defensive. We paid little attention to changes such as the changed purpose of the UUA, the change from individualism to collectivism,… Read more »
My old congregation has accepted the new Article II. The new Article II and the process behind it feels bad. What are the chances of finding another congregation not accepting of the change within a reasonable distance? An online church is not what I need, I need the community too. Finding another liberal religion, without a DEI doctrine, has been fruitless. It’s time to move on.
I wish the editors of this site would assign someone to read each article submission through the eyes of someone whose primary goal is to discredit and slander the author and the site as a whole (I’d be happy to offer my services). This person should comb through an article submission with one thought in mind: what phrases can be used to slander the author as a racist and a bigot? And edit the article accordingly, before posting. Don Manning-Miller is trolling here, smearing us with phrases like “pure racism” and “vitriolic anti-trans and racist.” Even if he were banned… Read more »
Shaun, do you know Don Manning-Miller personally? You must not, because if you did, you would know he is NOT trolling. Don Manning-Miller has lived a life committed to affirmation of African American heritage, culture and life. His late wife was African American, and he, a white man, lives apparently largely within the loving fold of his African American family and community. He has worked broadly and effectively across decades in racial justice in America. Yes, his words were very strong, and yes, i agree with another commenter here (maybe webmaster even) that Don did not deploy generous interpretation in… Read more »
Thank you for providing this background information about Mr. Manning-Miller. Your comment also leaves me with a lingering question: if an Anti-Racist activist indulges in one of their favorite activities, unfairly smearing someone as a racist bigot, but they do so sincerely, does their sincerity mean that it is no longer an act of slander?
Shaun, I have no further comments on the matter of Steve Myles’ post and Don Manning-Miller’s reply.
A comment, wrapped in a declaration of “no further comment.” How clever.
In defense of the editors, no text is pure enough through lens of extreme Critical Race Theory, which seeks not to discern whether it’s racist but rather how it’s racist — and whether the author is a villain or a victim. I prefer to think of adherents of extreme CRT and its derivative “White Fragility” (the UUA’s bible) not as trolls but as misguided True Believers. Don has credentials that matter: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W7LAXKCroQ8 That being said, I think he severely misinterpreted Steve Myles’ offering. The Article II Study Commission was appointed by the UUA Board of Trustees. Devoid of meaningful viewpoint… Read more »
Thank you for the link to the Youtube video documenting the credentials of Mr. Manning-Miller. He has dismissed this community as “cesspool” of “vitriolic anti-trans and racist white fragility.” So possibly you are right, and there is no need to “spit out” or ban him. If he is sincere is his characterization of us, he wont be back.
Thank you, Steve. I obviously had/have problems with the elimination of the Principles in favor of the revision. And of the controlled misuse of power that pushed them through. Else I would have never been on this page. And while I consider CRT in its original formulation an important lens for understanding American history and current social, political and economic relations, I don’t agree with the UUA unitary, exclusive approach to antiracist work and certainly not the way they have gone about trying to implement it. But as Finley Campbell said in one of the zooms last year about Jon… Read more »
Thanks for the clarity — and for remembering Finley, who championed civil discourse.
It’s a vigilant struggle not to become angry and jaded and careless with words.
I hope this exchange proves that we can recover from our lapses, disagree in good faith and be not a cesspool.
Our thoughts are more aligned than I imagined. I appreciate your kind reply.
Why oh why is it problematic to point out the absurdity of having a minority-majority commission in charge of any major working group in an 85% organization?
85% white organization