To the Editor:

I won’t lie. As a lifelong educator, journalist, and rabid champion of the First Amendment, I am relieved that the slate of four Guilderland School Board candidates campaigning under the slogan of “Parents Right To Know” have lost.

But this is no time to gloat. Those of us who truly believe in inclusion should see this as an opportunity to practice what we preach. The election results show that one in four voters — the approximate number of voters who preferred the other slate — are deeply worried about the direction of our schools, its curriculum, and the degree to which parents may participate in potentially sensitive decision-making.

That’s too large a number to simply ignore. To do so would be imprudent, bad politics, and contrary to our mantra of inclusion. Even those of us, like myself, who believe their worries are either unfounded or exaggerated must recognize that we cannot go forward as a community when one in four voters has such deep misgivings.

Yes, the voters have spoken, and by a margin of three-to-one — an overwhelming mandate — but unless we wish to continue to reflect the nationwide polarization in politics and values, we should seize this opportunity to extend not only an olive branch to the other side, but a genuine open mind. We would have asked no less of them.

These days, across the country, politics has devolved into a blood sport, with flags and banners and lawn posters declaring an undying fealty to this or that cause or candidate. Our nation is sadly tearing itself apart to the point where it suffers from governmental paralysis. It has become, as Abraham Lincoln once described it, “a house divided.”

This election affords us an opportunity to demonstrate that we care about what others think, and that includes those with whom we disagree. It is the essence of democracy that we listen to others. One of my heroes is John Stuart Mill, the 19th Century political philosopher who wrote “On Liberty” and who thought deeply about what democracy really means.

He concluded that dissent is an essential element of a viable democracy, that we ought not merely tolerate those whose views are different from our own, that we should explore them, consider them, and celebrate the fact that their voices are out there.

He observed that, when we truly listen to dissenters (which is how we may consider those of our neighbors who disagree with us), only two things can happen: either we cans learn from them and discover that we were wrong about our own positions, or two, that we were right and our beliefs will have been strengthened by the challenge and the testing of those beliefs.

So what does all this mean in practice? That is the more difficult question. How do we respond to the concerns of parents who believe, for example, that critical race theory, or gender and sexual identity issues, ought not to be taught in the schools, especially to the young in their most formative years?

The election was lopsided and the victors have a clear and unequivocal right — indeed an obligation — to pursue the course for which they campaigned and were elected. But as with so many hot-button issues in the culture wars and in the fights over curriculum, polarization is often the product of a winner-take-all mentality, and an unwillingness to explore either some middle ground or some way to recognize and legitimize the views of others without compromising the integrity of the curriculum.

For example, on matters of race, I am of the belief, and I think many others who voted as I did share that belief, that even the youngest of our children should be exposed to at least some notion of the legacy of slavery and its lingering effects on our society. But does this necessarily mean that we must impose upon the very young the notion that they are somehow personally complicit or that the nation has not in truth struggled with the issue and made great strides?

In other words, can we not sensitize them to the work that must be done without ignoring the work that has been done? Teaching the young about our wrestling with issues of race is a way to empower them, to show them that history is participatory and that the next chapter is theirs to write.

Even the young cannot escape the news, such as the massacre in Buffalo. Who among us wishes for our young to grow up believing American society is chaotic and violent to the core, that racial enmity and hatred is universal?

It is not. Violence is sporadic and racial issues, though complicated for even the most mature of us, can be presented as a challenge and an opportunity for the young at least as much, if not more, than an historical burden and dark cloud. It can be taught as a kind of moral imperative rather than an historical indictment. I have taught elementary school, high school, and college, and I have been constantly surprised at how much even the youngest may grasp and how many questions they have independent of our curriculums.

The same may be said of children’s introductions to issues of gender and sex. I think most parents would agree that clinical or anatomical details of sex are not fitting for the youngest among us, that it would only unnecessarily confuse them. But I also believe that a child is almost never too young to be taught that all children are worthy of our love and respect and equal opportunity, and that not everyone’s life is lived on the same path.

We can celebrate differences and send that affirmative message. Believe me, as one who was raised in the fifties, I know the unsaid and unspoken itself becomes a powerful and insidious lesson that lingers deep into one’s life.

For too long we have used the word “tolerance” to describe the way we should respond to other’s differences. It is a terrible word for a democracy. It comes from the Latin and means the ability to endure pain or suffering.

But we must see “the others” in our midst — different by gender, by race, by political party, by cultural value — not as a thing we must suffer with, but as an invitation to be more open, more accepting. The true liberal, in the classical sense, is not without deeply held values, but one of those values most deeply held  is the importance of genuinely listening to others.

Schools would do well to do less by fiat, and more by consultation and deliberation. Those parents who feel threatened by a curriculum should be not only heard but listened to. Yes, elections have consequences; it’s why we have elections. But those consequences provide guidance and direction. They do not mean that the opposition must be exiled into the wilderness of political defeat.

There will doubtless be many times when those who supported the defeated slate will not be happy with the outcome or the direction of the school system, but there should never be times when they feel they were ignored or dismissed out of hand, or that they were seen as enemies of the system or the community.

Let us be known for our magnanimity and generosity of spirit, not our judgmental nature. If we continue to delegitimize our political and cultural opponents, we will end up as a dysfunctional and bitter nation where democracy itself is in peril. Are we not close enough already?

I say this as someone who believes deeply in the need to educate our youth on matters of history and race and on the need to embrace those whose gender identities and sexual orientation are different than our own: Those of us who promote inclusion must first practice it ourselves, and there is no better time than the day after an election.

Ted Gup

Altamont