Free school defined?

From tierra del fuego (southern tip of South America) to the rio bravo (the Rio Grande), everyday folks-simple and humble folks like us- are coming together as communities, collectives, and networks in order to create, from the ground up, a new and better world. They are challenging/confronting the rich and their institutions (those who are above) while at the same time creating new ones from below. It is time for those of us who are also simple and humble folks, from below, to follow suit. Another world is possible! Let us come together and build it!

It is in this sprit that we have launched the “free school.” We oppose the university’s monopoly of knowledge and we oppose the stale and elitist academic ivory tower. However, we are passionate about education. We believe in promoting an educational process that is free, open, and collective. We believe in promoting an educational process that is by us and for us-those of us down here below in the shadow of that pompous ivory tower. We believe that everyone has something to teach and everyone has something to learn. And we believe that the educational process should be community centric. By this we mean that the process should be addressing the needs of the community and should be accountable to the community. Also, we believe that education in and of itself can create community! In Latin America this is called “popular education.”

In addition to concrete skills such as gardening, bike maintenance, DIY publishing, etc, The “Free School” will also discuss things such as history, political theory, and ideas. “Without theory, there can be no revolution”-this is a phrase often heard in the social movements of Latin America today. We believe that those of us who are from below here in Mount Pleasant are perfectly capable of generating and discussing useful theories that can help to equip us with the tools necessary to make this a better place! We will “walk by asking questions,” as is said in the social movements of Latin America.

Finally: It is no secret that we are in the middle of not only a national economic crisis but also a global economic crisis. It is often very hard to understand what this means. Few of us understand economic terms. But even without totally understanding the “ins and the outs” of the crisis, we do understand that the rich and their institutions (those who are above) will seek to intensify their exploitation of those of us who are below. After all, those who are suffering the most during this crisis are us! As tuition rises and financial aid is gutted, for example, less and less of us will be able to afford to even get the chance to enter the halls of academia. We are confident, then, that it is a critical moment for us to be prepared. It is often a crisis that produces profound changes in society-for the better and for the worse. We, of course, are interested in making sure that these profound changes are for the better! In order to do that, we must first come together to share skills, resources, knowledge, ideas, passion, creativity, and joy. Alone, as individuals, we have nothing. Together, as communities, we have the chance to at least start talking about having something. Everything else is just commentary.

So let us come together and share our knowledge and our skills!

Proposed changes:

1. A numerical list of tenets or principles. Paragraph two already follows this format, but with a numerical list, we could more easily add any future tenets we may decide on as a group. It would also make editing a snap (e.g. "I think tenet two is a load of horseshit for these reasons…I think tenet six needs greater clarification…etc.) Finally, it would also make our central message more palatable to the various skimmers and corner-cutters of the world. Thoughts?

2. I propose Paragraph IV, sentences 2, 3, and the first part of sentence 4 be struck. Instead of making specific claims of our collective knowledge and understanding, we could simply begin sentence four with a general claim, something to the effect of “Even without an extensive education in economics, it is easy to understand that the rich and their institutions….” This just seems more inclusive. Thoughts or objections?

Just some thoughts after an initial reading: I’m sure I’ll come up with a few more. Hope it isn’t overly pedantic. Feel free to criticize my proposed changes with equal élan.

Apparently, there were a few editing suggestions discussed via gmail and other websites. We might be better served by consolidating our ideas and moving them to a single forum so that nobody is out of the loop. We can discuss this on Wednesday. I’d also like to see more people sign up for crabgrass! :D

I think that Taylor’s proposal to switch the definition to a series of numerical list of tenets is a good proposal. I personally accept it. But of course let’s discuss it face to face on wed. In a way I kind of see the internet as helping to facilitate our face-to-face wed. night meetings.

The second proposal about striking the sentences in paragraph IV is also a good and acceptable proposal, in my opinion. In fact, i feel an apology is due here in my part for “…making specific claims of our collective knowledge and understanding.” that’s kind of a big mistake and I’ll work not to do that again, and would propose that we all stray from making that particular mistake.

I would propose that whoever is facilitating the wed. organizational meeting put together a list of proposals/questions/discussion topics that have arisen out of the email, crabgrass, and informal discussions we’ve had since our last (and first of many!) face to face meeting.

Also, I’m working on a textual English interpretation (what some call translation) of a def. i found for “revolution” that I think would be fun to discuss and/or use for Tuesday night’s session. Can you all look at the english part and 1. see if it’s readable and 2. pick which word in parenthesis makes most sense?

here it is:

Original Spanish:
Desde aquellos momentos comencé a pensar que la revolución y la organización que luchaba por alcanzarla no podía ser solo la asociación de un grupo de personas que trabajaban para que se concretizara un acto glorioso al final de una sucesión de pasos y tareas que otros pensaban y uno, disciplinada y eficazmente, ejecutaba. Tenía que ser una obra colectiva gozosa, voluntaria, satisfactoria, donde todos y todas pusiéramos lo mejor de nosotros y creáramos en común algo que a todos nos perteneciera; porque ante todo, la revolución se me presentaba muy intuitivamente como un gigantesco y grandioso acto de creación.

English interpretation:
“(Since, From) those moments I began to think that the revolution, and the organization that struggled to achieve it, couldn’t (only, just) be the association of a group of people who worked so that there was made concrete a glorious act at the end of a succession of steps and jobs that others thought up and (the other, you, one), disciplined and effectively, executed. It had to be a joyful, voluntary, satisfactory, collective work, where we could all put the best of ourselves and all create, in common, something that belonged to all of us; because before everything, the revolution presents itself to me very intuitively as a giant and grand act of creation.”

No need for an apology. I didn’t think you were being presumptuous. Just a matter of some questionable language. It’s all good. :D

I also agree with both points Taylor brings up, for the record, as well as Angelo’s proposal that whoever is facilitating Weds. bring all that info to the table for discussion. On that note, is the person facilitating going to be decided tonight, or is it possible to do it earlier—just thinking that whoever might need time to print shit out, etc. I think we also need to figure out in advance who is going to be facilitating in the future, whether it’s one person, rotating, etc., so he or she can have time to prepare whatever if necessary and possibly act as a point person if people have questions about that particular meeting, whatever.

Also, in regard to the “translation,” I would say “From those moments…,” “couldn’t just be,” and “you, disciplined and effectively,…”

But that’s just from reading the excerpt—it would be good to know the context of the material it was pulled from, especially in terms of readability.

IS THAT YOU ELISE???

I second all of your comments/ideas/opinions about the role of facilitator. That’s something we definitely need to address on Wednesday, if not sooner. I’d be happy to meet briefly after the lecture tonight to hammer out some details on the moderation business.

All: I just threw up some committee ideas….they are JUST PROPOSALS meant to get a conversation started about 1. if we want to even have committees/working groups 2. if so, what would they be?

whoever is facilitating tonight be sure to add that to the agenda (unless the agenda is too big at this point)

I like the idea of committees, especially given the number of projects that have been proposed.

When we have a finished copy of the manifesto, we can post that shit under the “wiki” section on the front page.

I’m going to post this here, on this moribund thread, because it seems relevant.

So, for anyone who couldn’t come, a few of us from MPFS had a discussion about direct action on Thursday (8/20). Bror was kind enough to bring a huge list of questions that are meant to help groups zero in on their goals/purpose/aims/etc. in regards to direct action. After reading them, I think most of us agreed that some of them would be especially helpful to us in figuring out for what purposes MPFS exists. I know most people don’t want a hard-&-fast definition, per se, & that’s fine, but I believe by answering these questions, we will have a better understanding of what each of us wants out of Free School as well as a general trajectory. That, I’m hoping, will be the groundwork on which we can base our praxes, to use bell hooks’s word.

Without knowing what we are (& I’m being intentionally vague), I don’t know how we can “help to create community” or any of the other myriad ideas we have.

So, I’m proposing we take a look at these questions & discuss our responses at the next org meeting (or some org meeting — the next one might be best, though, because we’re hoping to see a lot of new faces & some old ones, and it would be interesting to have their input). To that end, I’m wondering if I should post the questions here (there are about 50 of them), send them through e-mail, or do something else entirely. I’m more than happy to type them up (assuming this doesn’t get lost in the MPFS annals).

Thoughts?

If you can grab the URLs from Bror, I’d really like to see that list emailed out, along with what you’ve written above. I think it’s important we answer those questions; if not as a group, then at least as individuals.

Also, it’s hilarious seeing this ancient thread catapulted to the top of the discussion boards. Ahhh, memories….

check and check