“Have we reached unity?” is a central question to the Quaker decision-making process, and one that is asked frequently during Upper School student government meetings. As a Quaker institution, Moorestown Friends seeks to apply this decision-making process to both student and administrative bodies, but how unity is achieved is often not understood by students.
Quakers believe that there is that of God in everyone, and therefore everyone’s insights are equally important. Quakers make decisions for the group by seeking “unity,” where every member of the meeting is in accord with the decision at hand. In Quaker practice, if there is someone who is not in support of the decision, they have the opportunity to dissent and stand in the way of consensus.
On January 25, the Upper School held their second Meeting for Worship for Business of the school year, where the Upper School Environmental Committee introduced the “Clean Graduation Proposal,” which sought to encourage the use of reusable celebratory graduation props.
Introduced in the last 15 minutes of the meeting, Environmental Committee clerks presented the proposal and asked the group for unity. There was a dissenting voice, and after the student stated their dissenting opinion, their dissent was met with rebuff from another student. The group was then asked for unity again, but according to the minutes, there was no record of this second asking for unity; the minutes did not specify if the group reached or did not reach unity before dismissal.
Students left the meeting unsure of consensus and of the legitimacy of the Quaker process. “According to the books, it was unity, but according to everybody, you know, the second you step[ped] out of the auditorium, people were [saying] there was no unity there,” commented Meeting for Worship for Business Clerk Daniel Sorokin ’23.
Meeting for Worship for Business is traditionally held once a month during the 45-minute Meeting for Worship period. Chester Reagan Chair and US student government adviser Melissa McCourt acknowledged that the main issue with the current process is the amount of time allotted for Meeting for Worship for Business: “We need more time and a deeper reflection on the information being given to us, but … We don’t have enough time with every meeting for students to really be able to reflect … [the Quaker process] pushes back on our society’s norms of getting things done quickly,” said McCourt. “If we are going to engage in a Quaker process, [should time be] a factor of our decisions?”
In addition to the pressure of limited time, students, especially those who are new to the Upper School, find it intimidating to voice their dissenting opinions, which raises concerns about the sincerity of the Meeting for Worship for Business process. Sorokin recognized the challenges of dissenting: “There is that … culture around it being hard to say ‘no;’ that’s always been there, and it’s hard to get rid of it.”
Sorokin added that in the auditorium, there is a “different aura” than in the Meetinghouse, which is where Meeting for Worship for Business is normally held: “We had to have five minute [breaks] between every [topic] to make sure that everybody calmed down because it was in the auditorium, and there’s not that level of respect that’s innate to the atmosphere [of MFWFB].”
For most students, school committees, such as the Agenda and Diversity Committees, are their first introduction to the Quaker process. For some, Meeting for Worship for Business is their only experience with the process. With three years of the COVID-19 pandemic leading to varied meeting locations and volatile Meeting for Worship for Business schedules, the Upper School has a student body that is largely unfamiliar with the earnestness of the Quaker process.
“The Quaker process is a live, dynamic process where anyone can stand up and express their views … that can take courage,” said Recording Clerk and Worship Planning Committee Clerk Shay O’Connor ’23. As a member of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, O’Connor is familiar with Quaker process in action, and he noted that in a basic spiritual sense, the process is about “listen[ing] to that of God and the inner light in everyone,” and that as a school, an area of focus should be ensuring that everyone’s truth is recognized during the Meeting for Worship for Business process.
Moving forward, the Upper School Clerks are formulating new ways to ensure that the Quaker process of Meeting for Worship for Business is more meaningful and runs more smoothly.
“We are going to make it so that silence [means] ‘yes,’ so we can hear people who say ‘no’ better,” said Sorokin. “We’re going to look for – possibly, this is not 100 percent – different ways of reaching unity … We’re really going to be talking about norms, and being [non-] combative at Meeting for Business.”
A shortened agenda and an extended time period, McCourt suggested, can help ease pressure on students and give way to deeper reflection. But, even with those adjustments, McCourt questioned the successfulness of the process given the large group of students present: “It could be successful if we had the time to deeply reflect on some things, but then my question is, how meaningfully could we do that with such a large group of people?”
Featured image posted by Sierra Koder on Unsplash and free to use under the Unsplash License.
Edit: A former version of this article stated that the minutes recorded that unity was reached. That is incorrect; the minutes did not record whether there was or was not unity at the end of the meeting.
