One of my most interesting college professors taught me in my freshman fall semester.
I hadn't grown up around many people who went to college. I had little idea what to expect at Arkansas State University in Jonesboro. Among my first classes was American Government, inside what was, even then, the ancient passages of Wilson Hall, originally opened in 1932 and today still at the heart of the ASU campus.
David England was probably in his 40s when I was his student. By that time, he'd already lived an intriguing life -- service as a Marine in Vietnam then as a warden in the Georgia Department of Corrections. But he'd heard the call to be an educator, becoming an instructor at ASU and eventually earning his Ph.D.
At least in my memories, he spoke with a bit of what might have been considered a speech impediment -- his "s" became more of a "sh" sound -- but it was no obstacle for him or for his students. His voice had character as he pushed his students hard. Whatever high school ideas of note-taking I had, his instruction and passion for the subject taught me I would have get much better at documenting his lectures, and quickly. That served me well throughout my college years.
My time with Mr. England (he earned his Ph.D. a little later) was 38 years ago. He passed away a few years back, but I still think of him and his class as I observe government at work.
He taught his students about the responsibilities of the branches of government -- executive, legislative and judicial. Within the legislative branch, England spoke with admiration for the deliberative process that brings together elected representatives from disparate places and inserts them into a system designed to promote collective decision-making, albeit slowly, because rapid change is often fraught with instability.
He taught about compromise. It wasn't a bad word to him, as it is to some today. I think he would suggest compromise is the lubricant that keeps the engine of government running, never perfectly smooth but without the heavy vibrations and friction that can, if allowed to go on too long, tear it apart.
I think about Mr. England's lectures from time to time when I hear governors of Arkansas talk of calling special sessions, as Gov. Asa Hutchinson is doing now, but declining to include some subject matter because he doesn't believe there's a "consensus" among lawmakers. Must a victory be guaranteed before an effort is worthwhile?
Hutchinson is in that "no consensus" boat now on needed pay increases for the state's public school teachers. In June, he advocated raising teacher salaries to a minimum of $46,000, about $10,000 more than the minimum salary for teachers in the approaching school year. Why? To compete with surrounding states and keep good teachers in Arkansas.
Senate President Pro Tempore Jimmy Hickey, R-Texarkana, has helped thwart Hutchinson's push for teacher pay raises, suggesting raises will be considered in the next regular legislative session. That's after Hutchinson leaves office and either Democrat Chris Jones or Republican Sarah Huckabee Sanders will be in the Governor's Mansion. Maybe that's the point.
No governor, at least one with further political aspirations, wants to lose on a big political issue, but this idea that lawmakers should come to some consensus before the governor will put an important matter like teacher pay on the call for a special session seems like fraidy-cat politics.
Sometimes, my former professor/Marine/warden might say, the legislative process is exactly where such matters should be hashed out, in public, with accountability. Not through some secretive conversations about consensus, but through the deliberative process created by the nation's Founding Fathers.
See Dr. England, I did pay attention.