Vis Lupi Est Grex

Learning How to Swim

As the Sagebrush pointed out in its last staff editorial, "The new session is a glimmer of hope for improving the reputation of the Associated Students of the University of Nevada Senate – all they have to do is avoid repeating the mistakes of the past." The chief mistake: not learning, and becoming proficient with, the rules.

Each of the three candidates for Speaker of the 77th Senate lamented the fact that they felt like they had nobody to teach them the rules. Senator Patrick Kealy said "We weren't trained very well as 76th session senators." But now-Speaker Gracie Geremia perhaps said it best: it was like being thrown overboard without any support. "Nobody taught us how to swim, nobody gave us floaties," Geremia said. We hope to provide some floaties.

Before I continue, let me be abundantly clear about my motives behind this post, and future ones like it: it is to help the 77th Senate, full of promise, to avoid the mistakes of the past. The best way of doing that is by pointing out specific examples of the failures of the past so growth can occur. It is unavoidable to focus on specific failures of the past. It isn't done to criticize the people involved. The fact of the matter is the Senators are not experts on their rules. It would be unfair to except them to be. Even the incumbents, who have a year of experience under their belts, still have much to learn.

In short, the Senators need to become comfortable with the water before they can swim and before they can swim well.

Principles are sacred
President Franklin D. Roosevelt understood the big picture on rules. In a speech to young Democrats, he said, "Rules are not necessarily sacred, principles are." The principle underlying the ASUN Constitution and the Senate Rules is the rule of law--the idea that people are best governed by rules implemented by a deliberative process rather than by the whims of people, even when well-intentioned in nature.

Are there specific rules that are perhaps unfair in certain circumstances? Absolutely. There are exceptions to nearly everything in life. But if we cannot agree that the rule of law is a noble, just principle which deserves to be promoted, we cannot agree on much that follows. You either believe in the principle of the rule of law or you don't. There really isn't any middle ground.

Principles and rules as a framework
So why do we have rules? Well, let's look at a simple example first: checkers. We all have played checkers at one point or another. But imagine being exposed to the game for the very first time. It's a very simple game, but it has rules. Simplified, the rules are:

• The game board is an 8×8 grid, with alternating black and red squares.
• Two sets of pieces of different color, one dark and one light.
• Each player starts with 12 pieces on opposite ends of the board, with one piece placed in the dark grid space in the three rows closest to the player. The player with the dark-colored pieces moves first.
• Players can move in two ways: move and jump. In a move, pieces slide one space forward diagonally (or backwards if the piece is a king). A jump, quoting the linked Wikipedia article:

• • A jump is a move from a square diagonally adjacent to one of the opponent's pieces to an empty square immediately and directly on the opposite side of the opponent's square, thus "jumping directly over" the square containing the opponent's piece. An uncrowned piece can only jump diagonally forwards, but a king can also jump diagonally backwards. A piece that is jumped is captured and removed from the board. Multiple-jump moves are possible if, when the jumping piece lands, there is another immediate piece that can be jumped, even if the jump is in a different direction. When multiple-option jumping moves are available, whether with the one piece in different directions or multiple pieces that can make various jumping moves, the player may choose which piece to jump with and which jumping option or sequence of jumps to make. The jumping sequence chosen does not necessarily have to be the one that would have resulted in the most captures. If a player does not take their jump because either they (1.) did not see it or (2.) refuse, the piece that could have made the jump is "blown" or "huffed," (which eliminates it from the game) and the opponent continues their turn as normal. Any piece, whether it is a king or not, can jump a king.
• Pieces are "kinged" when a player's piece moves into the kings row on the opposing player's side of the board. A king piece can move forwards and backwards on the board.
• The game ends when an all of an opponent's pieces or captured or no legal moves remain, ending in a stalemate.

For what is as simple a game as checkers, it actually has some pretty complex rules. If two beginners had sit down at the board having never seen the game before, what might unfold could hardly be called a game of checkers: it would be chaos, but they wouldn't recognize it as such. They might think they were playing the game and not be aware that they lacked any real grasp of the game (think of when two kids "play" with chess pieces). Likewise, when one player knows how the game works but the other does not, it can end in chaos. The player who knows the rules will be frustrated by the novice's lack of understanding, and the novice will be frustrated by the veteran knowing how it works.

Just think about what it's like playing with a child who hasn't quite grasped how a game works. When the child is losing, the game will likely end abruptly with the child declaring, "I don't like this game." Why the child doesn't like the game is readily apparently to the people who know the rules and how to play: he doesn't like the game because he doesn't understand it, and because he doesn't understand it, he's no good at it. But, when both players know the rules and know how to apply them--to know how to play the game--it will be a pleasant experience for both players.

ASUN is sort of like checkers
The Senate Rules and the ASUN Constitution are no different, just much, much larger in scope, scale, and complexity. To draw the comparison, the 76th Session was like a bunch of novices playing a game of checkers: they thought they were playing the game well; in reality, they were flailing about because they didn't have an experienced player around to teach them the game. And when outsiders, who had a demonstrated understanding of the rules, criticized them for not knowing the game, they interpreted it as contempt for them as individuals and rejected it. (Although it may seem to trivialize ASUN and the people involved, I use the term "game" to explain ASUN as a process that has rules that must be used to achieve an objective. The best comparison on a very simple level is to call it a game.)

I hesitate to make the comparison because of the animosity that the observation was met with from the 76th Session Senators, but one only need to look closely at the record of the 75th Session compared with what the 76th Session did to see the difference between players who understood the game and those who did not. The form, the content, the nuances, all of it is demonstrably and objectively better than even the "best" items of the 76th Session.

When posts are published here pointing out errors and failures in what the Senate is doing with respect to its process, it is intended only to be a teaching moment so the Senators can grow to be more experienced with the process. This will take time, it will require a concerted effort on the part of the Senators, and it will only work if the criticisms are embraced by them.

I don't think there are any bad people in the Senate. They all only want to try their hardest and do what's best for the students. With that out of the way, the next post will explore some of the flaws with the first agenda prepared by the Senate's new Speaker.

Let's hope the incumbents, including Speaker Geremia, have the presence of mind, the introspection, and wherewithal to back up their complaints about not being taught the process with embracing those who did, people from whom the Senators could learn much.