by Thom Little, Ph.D.
A few weeks ago, SLLF sponsored our 21st annual Emerging Legislative Leaders Program at the University of Virginia’s Darden School of Business. And it was, as usual, a rousing success. However, it was up to the participants to convince Dr. Jared Harris, the program’s lead faculty, of that fact. As he always does, Dr. Harris began our discussion on the last morning by offering an evaluation of the previous day. On that day, participants had engaged in a spirited discussion about how we as a nation should approach our history, especially its upcoming 250th anniversary. In his evaluation, because the debate had been “spirited” Dr. Harris assigned the class a grade of B+.
As a college professor, I am very familiar with students pushing back on a grade they feel is an insufficient recognition of their efforts and abilities and the same happened here. Immediately, program participants began to push back. One participant noted that while there were disagreements about how to honor America’s history, the disagreements were respectful. Another chimed in that the discussion was about issues and did not devolve into personalities. Wasn’t that the point of this program, another added. Upon reconsideration, Dr. Harris concurred that the grade for the day before should indeed be raised to an A+.
And, I have to agree with that re-evaluation, not just for that one conversation, but for the entire three-day meeting. The fifty legislators from 39 states and Puerto Rico earned the stellar grade for a variety of reasons.
First, it was evident from the very beginning that they had done their homework. That was obvious immediately, in the small group discussions on the opening night and class discussion on the first morning as everyone engaged in a conversation about David Brooks’ “How to Know a Person: The Art of Seeing People Deeply and Being Deeply Seen.” Their preparation was even more evident when we discussed Plato’s 3,000 year old “Allegory of the Cave!”
Second, the students earned an A+ because it was quite clear that they tried (mostly successfully) to leave their partisan identifications and predispositions outside the door. They were willing to listen, truly listen, to what others had to say and disagree without being disagreeable. In today’s polarized political world, that deserves a high grade!
Third, not only did participants listen with an open mind, some even changed their minds after class discussions. One of my favorite sessions of this program involves a series of ethical vignettes offered anonymously by participants that we then discuss. These ethical dilemmas range from questions about sexual harassment to appropriate campaign tactics to conflicts between party, conscience and constituents. One such vignette involved a legislator who felt harassed by an elderly legislator who would put his hand on her shoulder and sometimes her back when speaking with her. While many participants agreed this was harassment and suggested he should be reported to HR, others suggested that he meant nothing by it and it reflected generational and cultural differences. Interestingly, the morning following the discussion, one participant who defended the man’s actions on cultural grounds (we all do this in the south), noted that after reflection, he had changed his mind. In my gradebook, that is an A+!
Finally, the final conversation of the day revealed that significant friendships and relationships had developed across partisan, regional and ideological lines. Participants now have developed a network of fellow legislators to whom they can turn for advice, support and encouragement. Congratulations ELLP Class of 2025 – you all graduated with honors!
