On Not Knowing the Particulars:

The Mission of the Assembly

by Jack Wikse & David Shiner

During our last Assembly meeting there was a fundamental confusion in our discussion about administrative interns at Shimer. This confusion relates to the nature of public speech in the Assembly as directed to questions of the common, general, ethical or moral interests and historical identity of the Shimer community as a whole and distinct from particular issues and policies which are intended to be decided in the regular committees of the Assembly. This distinction might also be said to separate discussion of the impersonal public thing (res-publica), from private, personal or personnel issues. The former is fit fare for Assembly discussion. The latter is not, or should not be.

In what follows we will relate some of the constitutional history of Shimer and quote from the Preamble of the Assembly Constitution in order to bring this distinction into greater focus.

I The Skeleton in the Hallway

Before Shimer moved from Mt. Carroll to Waukegan in the winter of 1978-1979, all decisions were made in one deliberative and policy-making body of the whole called the "House." Everything that needed to be decided was decided there. There were in effect no offices or committees. People posted issues that they felt were important, and those issues were discussed and resolved at interminable meetings. The scope of the issues was seemingly infinite. A famous discussion involved the question of a student who had dragged a bathtub into one of the dorm hallways and placed a skeleton in it, greatly offending others who wanted it removed and the perpetrators punished. This issue was discussed for several hours in two separate meetings.

During this period of the College's history, there was a sense that everything was "all in the family." Whatever needed to be talked about involved everybody and needed to be discussed fully in order to continue the feeling of solidarity which kept the College alive.

II We Called a House Meeting and Nobody Came

After we moved to Waukegan and started to settle into developing a new stage of Shimer, there were fluid small group meetings where whoever had enough time and energy would discuss whatever came up and do something about it. The faculty met to deliberate about the academic program. Things got done, but often at cross purposes. Finally one faculty member felt the need to bring the whole community together and called a House meeting. When the time came for the meeting, only he and one other person showed up. It was clear that there needed to be developed some other form of governance to fit our new circumstances.

III From Pot Luck Lunches to the Assembly

One of the regular institutions that developed spontaneously in those days were pot luck meals. Everybody brought something to the meals and we gathered in what is now the Admissions Building--then a private residence with a large open room and a kitchen (we called it "The Greek House" at the time). Our "community meals" continue the feel of these gatherings. Afterwards we would usually have some sort of discussion of matters of general interest. Everybody was too busy (or having too much fun) to think much about the nature of governance. But gradually there came the idea that we should write a constitution that would organize college governance and establish a new system of authority to replace the House. Thus discussions about "the quality of life" generated the QLC. Grievances developed the "Grievance Committee." Needs for academic planning, budget-making, agenda-setting and student admitting formed their own committees. On November 18, 1980 we had a document that we met together to ratify. It was the first Assembly Constitution.

In the discussions of the group of us who wrote the constitution (including both the authors of this article), one of our central concerns was to express the idea that Shimer was an intentional, face-to-face, participatory democratic community. In writing the Preamble of the Assembly Constitution we took the language of "moral suasion," "the basic moral law," "the general will" and the Assembly as a "democratic legislature" from Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau, who is studied in Social Sciences 2, is the theorist of direct, participatory self-governance. One of his famous ideas is that the will cannot be represented, and it was this idea that we wished to preserve in the Assembly. Although we wanted a balance between the different sectors of the community (e.g., students, faculty and staff) such that all committees would be composed of elements of each, we intended that in the Assembly no one would be speaking as a representative of a "constituency".

In the final lines of the Preamble we tried to make it clear that questions such as the one concerning the skeleton in the hallway were not matters that should come before the Assembly. We intended the committees of the Assembly to be decision and policy-making bodies. As we wrote: "The Assembly as a body is not the forum for the discussion of particular issues, except insofar as they involve the basic values of the College. Its committees are expected to deal with such matters..." The purpose of the Assembly was something else entirely.

IV No Cats on Campus?

Consistent with these intentions, the Preamble to the Assembly Constitution declares that the Assembly "expects all officers and committees of the College to seek guidance from the Assembly whenever the particulars of their duties raise questions of basic policy or principle." Whenever issues being decided in committees or by officers of the College "are not regular matters of administration or execution of responsibility, but involve the basic values of the College as a whole," it should be standard procedure to seek "the general will of the Assembly."

The discussion Jim Simmons motivated at the last Assembly meeting regarding the pets policy is a good example of this. It is Jim's responsibility as Director of Housing to make this policy. As the Preamble states: "The Assembly expects that College officers and committees will exercise discretion and judgment in their work." Although as an officer of the College Jim is authorized to make policy decisions, in consulting the Assembly he was recognizing that officers and committees "presume the will of the Assembly in the formation of basic policy". Since the Assembly is not the forum for the discussion of particulars unless they raise questions of basic values, it would have been inappropriate during this discussion for a motion to be made banning cats from campus – or, for that matter, one specifically not banning cats from campus. Jim characterized his intent as wishing to "raise consciousness" about the value we place as a community on individual responsibility. In this we could say that he was appealing to the "moral suasion" of the community assembled to help him perform his office. In any decision he might make, he would be presuming the will of the Assembly as a guide. But it is not for the Assembly to make such a specific policy decision.

Similarly, the motion brought to the Assembly limiting the term of administrative interns to two years was appropriate to the extent to which it was attempting to gain insight into the basic values and principles to be used regarding such a decision. As the Preamble states, such values are "general" and regard the ethos of the College. When Albert Fernandez said that "we shouldn't exploit people", this was an example of a claim to speak the general will. This is the sort of thing the Assembly was formed to discuss and decide upon. Specific decisions concerning how long an internship might last are not.

In the Assembly, we don't know and shouldn’t know about the skeleton in the hallway. As members of the Assembly we don't know and shouldn't think about the particulars of the personnel decisions facing the administrative committee. This is not indifference; it is simply the sort of generality which is appropriate to the Assembly. And without a specific policy for us to review, it is unreasonable and improper to expect that a general discussion on this question could or should resolve a particular personnel question before a committee. To expect this is to confuse the general and the particular.

In closing, we would like to point out that part of the problem might be with our parliamentary conceptions. We are used to having the chairperson call for a motion to be placed on the floor of the Assembly before discussion can proceed. To the extent that this moves us from the general to the particular, it is probably counterproductive to proper Assembly deliberations. There are of course Assembly motions that can be framed in a manner that has both the appropriate generality and the requisite focus. However, debating and voting on motions should not be seen as the primary business of the Assembly. It is most important that the Assembly be seen as Shimer’s chief forum for Rousseauan democracy, where the dialogue about basic values and the quest for the deepest possible consensus is our aim.

Fax to: (847) 249-7171, attn: Promulgates