Not sure how calls to accept disagreements more civilly

[Igel]

2. In part, yes.

The rest, up to individuals.

Many years ago I was in a student org in grad school. Two vice-presidents, different job descriptions. We interacted. Many an evening we were on campus and argued--sometimes loudly, never with projectiles. I was at his wedding, I'd find a way to help him if, by some chance, he texted and said, "I need you."

Almost inevitably he was convinced I was 10 seconds from adopting his POV. Never did. Probably never will. Education--he's long since tenured in the field. Still ... Nope. I still think he's wrong in so many ways; and he, me. That's okay.

Still, he was convinced I was 10 seconds from 'converting' because we wanted the same things. Educated students. Prosperous families. Kids that were supported and ready to succeed. Kids that agreed with the "American dream," even if it was a reach from where they sat when they were 2 years old.

So on and so forth.

The point being that our end goals were similar; our desired outcomes were parallel; but the means to achieve them were utterly different. Fundamentally, that's the issue.

That was dialog. He wasn't evil. I wasn't evil. Goals? The same. Could we, over time, find a way to compromise on means? Maybe. Maybe not. He was absolutely, 100% sure, as to how to achieve those goals. Me, not so much. I grew up with the kinds of kids he confidently knew inside out without knowing in person. Our weekly fight-club sessions concluded and we went our separate ways, each opposed and each respecting the other at the end. He got his PhD, my advisor decided I was a 'problem,' 'disloyal,' 'not dedicated', and life went askew for me. ABD, no PhD. For a former union organizer that was punished for activism, you'd think he'd not be so self-righteousness even if other obligations were met; you'd be completely wrong, meet the requirements and still meet a stumbling of an advisor protecting "the field". Whatevs.

To this day, nearly 30 years later, I read his tenured professorial writings and see the same goals--but still, we differ as to means to achieve those goals. He's tenured at a high-powered school of education and I see the kids he says should act a certain way acting at odds to their/his 'interests' week after week, month after month, even if they're "betraying", as he'd put it, "their best interests." I have no solution to counterfactual arguments.

Except to say that H. economicus doesn't obey'50s-era economic or educa-tese 'theories', much less '60s era "critical theories" recycled from ''30s Germany. Nor do "H. educationalist" ideas, apart from what actual students think and do. Both set of kids reside in their cultures and that must be factored into their behaviors--whether my graduating working class of '77 or the upcoming set of students in my classes, working class high school ____ students of '26.Rah! Or whatever. Most are opting for 'whatever.'' I will fail them, but most are convinced that given a job they'd do better, much better. "A high school degree, on average, 3 years ago, was worth $30,000 from age 18 to 28." Shrug, they say. Some discuss how, by age 21, with a friend, they'll be living in a 3k sq ft $500k house, both working fast food. As one student put it, "you can't fix stupid." To say they're wrong is to offend them. But they're wrong.

Every year, my high school peers have a pool--which of our students will be first, after graduation, to be front-page news. Meaning important in dealing drugs, murder, rape ... The winner gets a gift card to the restaurant of his/her choice. One colleague's 4/6 and has learned to select rather high-end establishments. "Sad" to say, I'm 0/6. I keep hoping more from my kids than they can offer. He teaches all 'on level' science, the others teach a mix of on-level, AP, dual credit, and 2nd yr. So I 'get it.'