I've been on jury duty for the last week. It was a federal criminal trial???and judging from the number of individuals involved, it cost the taxpayers a heavy chunk of change. A couple hours ago, we rendered our verdict and now I'm free to talk about it. In a nutshell, it was one of the most frustrating experiences of my life. It should have taken us no more than 2 minutes to deliberate, but it took 2 days. Why? Because we had to issue a unanimous verdict on each count. And three jurors chose to disregard what I saw as incredibly damning evidence. The defendant was caught on surveillance on multiple occasions (half a dozen in fact) selling drugs. The source from whom he purchased the drugs was also once a drug dealer but now working for the feds to reduce his sentence. The feds wire tapped the "confidential source"??so we also had the defendant on audio tape discussing how much the drugs cost, when he was expecting more, and offering up various other types of drugs for purchase. They also found drugs in the defendant's apartment once he was arrested. In short, the evidence was there on each count to find him guilty.
The defense maintained the defendant was "entrapped" by our government. Ludicrous. Suffice it to say that he was not. But because three jurors saw an inkling of entrapment, the remaining nine of us were forced to bargain lest we hang our hats on a hung jury???which was not ideal for any of us. So we horse traded our way to guilty on three counts. The three dissenting jurors, however, were not looking at the evidence. They openly admitted that they distrusted the government; they distrusted the system.
So it is with education. We've spent a lot of time of late on this blog jawboning about the compromises made in Race to the Top applications because of the need for stakeholder buy-in. And we've generally surmised that it has not been a good thing. Checker rightly pointed out that stakeholder buy-in often means accommodating the wishes of adult interests, not students'.?? I participated in a jury deliberation process which led me to "bargain" some of my deeply-held convictions. It did not feel good. And I did it because the alternative (he gets off on all counts, for instance) was far worse. So we're left with a compromise for which no one on the jury was satisfied. That's what mistrust of one another will do. That's what having to compromise will do. That's what having everyone's "buy-in" looks like.
I hope not to have to serve on a jury again. And I hope those involved in submitting RTT plans and programs don't compromise to the detriment of the students they're to serve. Compromise for compromise's sake is not noble. Nor is choosing the lesser of two evils.
--Amber Winkler
