Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber
If you still think that student run teams are better there isn't much more I can do to tell you how wrong you are other than say that FIRST has had this issue for at LEAST the 8 yrs I've been in FRC and done nothing about it. Give it up, every team is run differently, stop saying your way is better than any other way.
|
I apologize to Andrew for picking on his post to make a point, and his is only one of zillions on CD that has said essentially the same thing in the last few years, and that is "FIRST (... has) done nothing about it. Give it up..."
For an organization that was founded on the idea that the dominant cultural belief that athletics is valuable and engineering is "nerdy" and "uncool," the FIRST community tends to react badly to criticism of its methods and norms. Why shouldn't people argue that student run teams are better tools for accomplishing the aims of the organization? Why enforce the same static cultural rigidity that gets established in virtually any society, when the whole founding idea of FIRST was to be radical -- to envision a different sort of world? When the CD community dogpiles on a dissenter, that's what they are doing -- rushing to the ramparts to drive off barbarians who don't accept the dominant view of the world. And that's just as bad as what FIRSTers believe the mainstream culture is doing.
I could go on and give examples from political history of revolutionaries and radicals who more-or-less instantly became reactionaries and conservatives once they took power, but I'm pretty sure you all get that without me pointing it out. I encourage you all not to turn from FIRST radicals into complacent majorities who favor dogma over change and unity over finding the best possible ideas. If you can't defend your beliefs without simply shouting down others who disagree, perhaps your beliefs don't have much value in the first place.
How does this tie into the thread? Simply bashing the organizations that are the most successful in FRC they way it exists today is stupid. If you believe that the system has produced some methods that produce dysfunctional results, it is incumbent upon you to come up with rational arguments showing that those methods aren't the best possible, and, if you can, suggest changes to make the program better. Those who defend the status quo ante are then obligated to present their argument. If you avoid this discussion because, "FIRST has always done it this way and won't ever change," that's bad for everyone, both the defenders of the current methods and those who seek change. "Because I said so" doesn't advance anything, doesn't improve learning, and certainly isn't going to "change the culture."
If you believe that the folks who run FIRST won't ever change and don't listen to thoughtful criticism, it might be best to just not talk about things any more. There does come a time where you have to stop talking and take action. (I'm not talking armed rebellion or revolution here. Just to be sure you don't misunderstand.) That action might be to find another similar organization that shares your values, or you might want to start your own program. I'm not making the argument that FIRST is like this, but if you believe that nothing you say is ever listened to you should start to listen to that "give it up" advice . If it hurts when you hit yourself in the head, eventually you might want to drop the hammer and find something else to do.
And don't call people names just because they are better at optimizing a solution under the given constraints. It's foolish and dishonest.