this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2026
423 points (99.5% liked)
Not The Onion
21122 readers
1127 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
how else are you suppose to select school board members? should they be appointed by the town/county or something?
In a sane world, by ability and competence
How do you assess that exactly? What are the qualifications or objective measurements of competence as a school board member?
And furthermore, according to whom? your personal assessment in particular?
There isn't a single right answer to that and I'm not going to suggest there is.
How any organisation operates, be that public or private, is down to the culture of the organisation, and culture comes from people, process, motivation, legislation, and a whole bunch of factors.
If an organisation has a clear mission, is held organisationally accountable in appropriate ways to that mission and makes people feel professionally enriched and valuable, it will attract competent people. And importantly, an organisation full of competent and principled individuals will attract other competent individuals.
On the flip side, if an organisation is subject to decades of mismanagement, has very poor oversight, doesn't reward people for being good at their jobs and in fact rewards the wrong behaviours then exactly the opposite will happen. People who are competent at what they do will either leave or be crushed down, while those who know how to play the bootlicking game will be raised up, and this type of organisation again becomes self-perpetuating.
None of this happens overnight, in either direction. Failure can take years or decades, and so can the reverse.
So your general point is a concern. Who can you trust to make the judgement. But that doesn't mean you should just toss up your hands either. As was pointed out, tests of various sorts could be done and the results presented to the voters so that they have more to go on than the number of lawn signd they have seen for a person. The write ups in the guides are nearly pointless. They can say anything they want in there. For a person running for reelection, their voting record would be nice to give voters easy access to. There are lots of ways to present the voters with objective information so that they can choose based on thier preferences. But none of that happens today.
it's a democratically elected position.
the judgement is the judgement voters of that district.
do you vote in your own local school board elections? I do, and yeah you vote based on the person's policy stated positions. however, just because I do that, doesn't mean lots of candidates I don't vote for, don't get elected and push policies I don't agree with... because they get more votes than the candidates I vote for did.
Also, why do you assume that the voters in this school district, don't want this guy? He may very well be who they think is best for the job. If you don't live in this district... you don't get to vote for the school board there.
By merit??
who judges that merit? how is it defined?
In typical fediverse fashion, the users responding to you have no answer so they get stuck on semantics and counter arguing your question rather than the intent.
I genuinely would like a well thought out response to this too. Would merit be someone with many years of teaching experience? Maybe school administration?
Do those things make that person capable of performing board responsibilities? Do those things preclude them from making creepy remarks (I highly suspect they don't)
For the record, the dude here has been on the board for 12 years, which should be more than enough time to learn the necessary skill set to do the job. Doesn't make him less creepy though.
I hear schools are pretty good at giving people these funny things called "tests" to assess an individual's knowledge on a certain subject. Not only are schools good at testing, I hear there is a WHOLE INDUSTRY built on creating and running them.
You know, they could give those to other people too I'll bet! In fact, I'll bet you can use them to qualify doctors, lawyers, barbers, auto mechanics and all sorts of people!
Oh wait, these are politicians. We shouldn't do that to them. I don't know why, but it just feels wrong. Never mind.
Who comes up with what's in these tests? Should we elect someone for that job?
Absolutely! It's just a complete coincidence that the people who the school system is failing are barred from fixing it because in order to pass the test you have to have done well in school. It makes perfect sense.
It's not like the US has a history of refusing to educate people, and then refusing to let them participate in civic matters by gating that access behind tests. The US certainly has never, say, made passing a test a requirement to vote to disenfranchise people.
And we all know that, of course, that any test would be super effective at preventing the abuse the above article is about. You just put the question "are you sexually attracted to children," on the test. That way you'd keep out creeps. And no one would ever lie on a test. That'd be ridiculous.
I don't know why people are disagreeing. It's a perfect system!
there is no test to run for, or be on a school board.
what would this test be, exactly? are you saying school board members should have to pass a civil service type of test before they can run, or after they are elected?
Shhhh, don't overload them with reason, it's rare to see this kind of naivete in it's natural form.
Do you know what a bad faith argument is?
Yes, and it's not this. I'm not making an argument either. I'm asking you a clear and obvious question.
Pretending you don’t know what merit is is a bad faith argument
Just to be clear, you're arguing that merit/competence can't be accurately judged and therefore should be ignored in favour of popularity ?
it can't be judged without well-defined criteria, no.
seriously, what is the qualification or criteria for being a good school board member? tell me. I'd like to know.
because as far as I am aware, there absolutely is none. anyone can run for school board.
You should ask people in a professional setting that work with schools this instead of demanding the answers from the black box of the internet.
No u!
Seriously, do you even vote in your local school board elections? I do. If so, what criteria do you use? I vote according to the educational platform they propose.
None of that has anything to do with merit of qualifications that are hypothetically being raised as criteria for evaluating a school board member's performance or competency.
It's not demanding answers, it's pointing out the typical lemmy/reddit hypocracy of sitting on a illusory high horse, getting outraged, and refusing to actually deal with the problem on your local level where you do have the ability to make a difference.
or if you want to be really extreme, you could move to this district in TN and run for school board yourself.
I dont think you can follow up with "seriously" after that.
You have already diminished the seriousness and effectiveness of this conversation to practically none, so this then becomes a conversation for fun... Which I dont find you to be.
That's not even required (though it would most likely be more accurate ) , there are some easy , low-hanging fruit answers to this question that don't need expertise.
I'm just interested in seeing if they really think popularity is the best option here.
any elected position is a popularity contest.
popularity as the only criteria or as one of many criteria ?
are you being deliberate obtuse?
an election is about who gets the most votes. there are no other criteria involved.
unless the election system has some other type of ruleset, like the presidential electoral college, or a more than majority requirement.
So just to be clear when you say popularity, you mean who people like the most, on a personal level ?
Not something like who people think is the most fit for the job, regardless of personal like or dislike ?
That's a partial answer at best , a nice deflection though.
So your argument is that there is no possible criteria by which competence/ability can be judged for a school board position so popularity is the best option ?
Once you answer the original question or the newly revised version above i can give you some idea on this.
Who can run for a school board and how a school board member is evaluated for the position are unrelated.
It's not an argument. It's a fact.
My local school board anyone can run. The only requirement is you are a resident of the district you represent, and you are over 18, and you are a registered voter. That's literally it. There are no other requirements, qualifications, or criteria for running for school board.
That seems definitive, good to have a rock solid source.
Useful information , eligibility to run is still not the full criteria for how someone is evaluated for a position though.
Technically, i suppose it could be considered an initial screening, so you're not entirely incorrect, just incorrect that it's the only evaluation mechanism.
If it were , there'd be no need for votes, first person to apply and be eligible would automatically get the job.
I have no idea what you are saying now. You're saying, you should dictatorially be given the power to appoint school board members, and you'd do so solely on a first come, first given, basis?
OK, so you are saying you want to be a dictator of school board members, because you are the one who should have sole authority in this area. And you would not judge people based on qualifications or merit?
OK.
I mean, not at all , read the reply again.
Ah, i see, you don't have an actual response so you weaponise ignorance, that's actually pretty clever.
It's hard to argue with someone not using reason as a basis, you neither have to present a reasonable argument nor support it, that's downright devious.
In case that reply was serious and you just missed what i was saying, i'll try and simplify for you and leave out the extra words around it so there's nothing to be confused about...ready ?
Who can run is not the only criteria for who is qualified for a position.
No dude, legally. It is. It is the only criteria that restricts and defines who can run for the position.
You can make up arbitrary things in your head, but legally you cannot stop anyone from running or winning, with the made up criteria in your head.
You can go and campaign to change your local election laws, btw.
ok, i'll change the emphasis.
Ok, so leaving out the subjective argument of who should be qualified, let's go with straight up logic, i'll bullet point it for you.
I'll even start with your very correct assertion that anybody who can run, can win.
I'll also requote myself from an earlier reply.
Perhaps "evaluated for" is more accurate.
Perhaps the disconnect is that you think everyone who is eligible is qualified for the job and it's just the winner of all these qualified people that is determined by the vote ?