Why Tennessee Needs Jones, Pearson, and Johnson

Source: Debbie Peterson/heyjasperai

The quality of what Americans consume, the laws they make and live by, and the charities they support are determined, for better or worse, by the leadership of the entities that oversee those products and services, whether the boards of directors of commercial corporations, government legislatures, or charitable institutions. The quality of oversight, in turn, affects the quality of life of consumers and constituents. The power of correction is in the hands of their customers, voters, and donors and is often regulated by more senior bodies, contractual obligations, or the law.

In April 2023, local governing boards in Tennessee butted heads with the state House of Representatives when their elected representatives and the rest of the House had a falling out. After a March 2023 mass shooting in Tennessee killed three children, two newly elected young African American assemblymembers, Justin Jones (Nashville) and Justin Pearson (Memphis), and a more senior white colleague, Gloria Johnson (Knoxville) protested on the House floor against gun violence. The House voted to expel Jones and Pearson for disorderly behavior.

If the representatives of communities are expelled, local community boards have the power to reinstate them. Within a week, both the County Board of Commissioners for Memphis and the Metropolitan Council of Nashville voted unanimously to reinstate the two young men elected by their communities. While a victory for the communities they represent, the reinstatement of Pearson and Jones may also improve the state legislature.

Experts agree that contention creates better outcomes

Government founders, business professionals, and psychologists assert that the boards of the best organizations honor dissension and, as a result, create better solutions.

The inviolability of dissent and the freedom to voice dissent is laid out in the first amendments of most democratic constitutions. State legislatures are established by the U.S. Constitution to follow a democratic model. They are designed to be a robust group of independent thinkers whose members ferret out the truth, challenge ideas, encourage spirited discourse, draw in constituent voices, and consider the minority while legislating in the majority interest.

The capacity to speak up and speak out is dubbed by some "moral courage." It is a high bar, memorialized by former U.S. Attorney General Robert F Kennedy:

Few people are willing to brave the disapproval of their peers, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change a world that yields most painfully to change.

A culture of open dissent

The world’s best business thinkers concur on the benefits of dissent. Jeffrey A. Sonnenfeld, senior associate dean for leadership studies at Yale University, says, “The best boards have a culture of open dissent—a virtuous cycle of respect, trust, and candor.”

In the September 2002 issue of the Harvard Business Review, Sonnenfeld observed that the culture of the best corporate boards is respectful of all participants and understanding of the difference between dissent and disloyalty, explaining that one who dissents may be one of the most conscientious and protective of the organization.

People of moral courage don’t get even; they get mad

In 2022 social psychology researchers Sasse, Halmburger, and Baumert reported that anger is a constructive motivating factor in the expression of moral courage. They find that anger has an important role in the psychological process underlying moral courage. They suggest that expressing anger in the presence of injustice is one way to show disapproval and that, over time, the anger felt by those sensitive to injustice increases and predicts intervention by the individuals.

Whether function or dysfunction in the case of the Tennessee legislature, experts agree that dissension on any board may help, rather than harm in the long term. Local governing bodies in Memphis and Nashville, by sending their contentious representatives back to the state legislature, appear to agree.