Redesigning Systems of Silence

Hello,

In my previous post, "Not the Problems Is Not the Solution," I argued that the opposite of harm is not silence. The absence of wrongdoing is not the same as the presence of good. I ended by suggesting that when silence becomes predictable, it is rarely accidental.

If silence is predictable, then it is patterned. And if it is patterned, then it is designed. That brings us to systems.

Over the past few years, I have been thinking deeply about systems and what I mean by design within them. Design is not abstract; it lives in concrete decision points such as who we hire, how we train staff, how we schedule supervision, where adults are assigned, what curriculum we adopt, how we evaluate performance, and what behaviors we consistently reinforce or ignore. Schools, organizations, and communities are not random collections of people making isolated decisions. They are structured environments shaped by policies, expectations, enforcement patterns, supervision structures, and cultural norms. They are perfectly designed to get the results they get. If certain behaviors persist, it is not because the system is lucky or unlucky. It is because the system’s design, intentionally or not, permits them.

Because I am an educator, I am going to focus primarily on school systems in this post. Those are the systems I know best and inhabit daily. However, the principles apply far beyond schools. Whether you work in a business, a nonprofit, a church, a hospital, or within a family, the same questions remain: What does your system tolerate? What does it reinforce? What has it been designed to produce?

If that sounds abstract, consider how it plays out in ordinary school life.

Most schools are not permissive of overt discrimination in classrooms. If a student uses the N word or makes a Natzi salute in the middle of class, most of us expect the teacher to stop instruction immediately, identify the behavior as wrong, and apply a consequence. Classrooms are structured spaces. Expectations are explicit. Decorum is enforced. Few people would defend ignoring that moment.

That is prohibition, but prohibition is not the same as formation.

Now change only the setting. Imagine the same student using the same language during passing time in a crowded hallway. Lockers are slamming. Students are shoulder to shoulder. Adults are monitoring movement and safety. The word or action is still wrong. The policy has not changed. Yet the response often becomes less predictable. The moment is fleeting. The supervision is diffuse. Intervention feels harder.

It is not difficult to act with dignity in a classroom setting because the expectation is explicit. What are we doing in spaces where expectations are less structured? What does the system tolerate there?

When discriminatory language and actions disappear from classrooms but resurface in hallways, buses, or online spaces, that is not random. It is displacement. Public prohibition does not eliminate behavior. It often relocates it. If harm simply relocates, then the system has managed optics, not outcomes.

Prohibition does build culture. When we design primarily for enforcement, we produce a culture of compliance. This culture teaches students where enforcement is strongest and where it is weaker. It teaches them when adults will intervene and when they might not. Unfortunately, that is a culture. It is just not necessarily a culture of dignity, and compliance is not conviction.

Several years ago, I read How to Be an Antiracist by Ibram X. Kendi. I used to think of racism as a continuum with racist on one end and not racist on the other.

Kendi reframes that structure. Racism is active. It produces inequity. Just like the opposite of fear is not courage, but love, the opposite of something active is not passivity. The opposite must also be active. Therefore, Kendi writes that the opposite of racist is antiracist. "Not racist" is passive and the absence of participation. Antiracist is the presence of opposition. In other words, the opposite of "not" is not “not that,” but rather, it is something else entirely.

While Kendi applies this specifically to racism, the framework extends more broadly. The opposite of discrimination is not simply “not discriminatory.” It is anti-discriminatory. It is active protection of dignity. It is deliberate opposition to behaviors and structures that degrade others' humanity. 

That shift from passive to active is where systems matter most. Passive systems are not accidental; they are built through diffuse accountability, inconsistent supervision across spaces, and limited adult training around shared language and response. When no one owns hallway culture, when supervision is assigned for logistics rather than climate, and when adults have not practiced how to intervene consistently, passivity becomes the predictable outcome.

Students are rarely asked to be upstanders in classrooms because a teacher is present and expectations are explicit. The real test comes in hallways, cafeterias, buses, and online spaces. Yet even there, adults are often nearby. The question becomes: what are the adults doing? If adult presence does not consistently translate into intervention, we should not be surprised when students shift into bystander roles or, over time, feel emboldened to become perpetrators themselves.

Not to guide a lily, but if students observe selective enforcement or quiet avoidance in less structured spaces, they learn that certain harms are tolerated depending on context. If, however, students observe that adults address degrading behavior everywhere, not just in formal classroom settings, they learn that dignity is nonnegotiable. Systems shape what feels normal. They shape what feels risky. They shape who is corrected and who is protected. When silence repeats, it becomes culture. When intervention repeats, it becomes culture as well. It is design.

Healthy systems do two things at once. First, they build clear mechanisms for correction and clear structures for prevention. When harm occurs, there are established response protocols, shared language expectations, and consistent follow‑through that does not depend on personality or proximity.

Additionally, healthy systems embed proactive design into daily practice through common language protocols, intentional hallway supervision rotations, adult coaching cycles focused on intervention skills, restorative practices built into schedules, curriculum that explicitly teaches dignity, and evaluation criteria that reinforce climate and culture as shared responsibilities. When harm occurs, it is corrected or ejected clearly and consistently. At the same time, the healthy system works proactively to reduce the likelihood of harm in the first place. Adults are aligned in their expectations. Curriculum addresses dignity explicitly. Supervision in communal spaces is intentional. Shared language travels beyond classroom walls.

Someone will inevitably say or do something wrong. No system eliminates that entirely. When harm occurs, does the system make harm easier or harder? Does the system it makes silence or intervention safer?

The opposite of fear is not the absence of fear, but the presence of love. The opposite of racist is not “not racist,” but antiracist. The opposite of systems of harm is not systems of silence, but systems of care.

If we truly believe that human dignity should be uplifted rather than degraded, then our systems must be intentionally structured to reflect that belief. Not only in classrooms, but everywhere.

The real work is not merely prohibiting the worst behaviors when they are visible. The real work is architectural. Culture is engineered through the repetition of adult behavior, the intentional allocation of adult presence, the structuring of instructional time, and the reinforcement of shared expectations. We allocate supervision with purpose. We train adults with clarity. We structure spaces for climate, not just control. We reinforce dignity until it becomes predictable. That is how systems are built. The real work is building systems that make dignity the expectation in every space. After all, silence that persists is not neutral. It is a product. And anything designed can be redesigned.

~Heather

P.S. Though I am neither Irish nor Catholic, in honor of St. Patrick’s Day, my Catch of the Week is the video St. Patrick’s Bad Analogies by LutheranSatire.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw

The premise is simple and hilarious. St. Patrick tries to explain the Holy Trinity using common analogies, like water in its different forms or the parts of an egg, only to be repeatedly interrupted because each analogy unintentionally drifts into an ancient heresy.

The running joke is that every attempt to simplify the mystery of the Trinity ends up oversimplifying it.

Regardless of where you land theologically, the humor is sharp and surprisingly educational. It is a clever reminder that some concepts resist tidy explanations, and that analogies, while helpful, can only stretch so far. Mostly, though, I appreciate the wit. It is thoughtful without taking itself too seriously, which feels fitting for a holiday that blends faith, culture, and celebration...and I dare you not to start saying "Paaa-trick" after watching it!

P.P.S. Please remember to...

Like and share this post

Check out other posts 

Subscribe to www.lyonsletters.com

Buy and rate your copy of Engagement is Not Unicorn (It's a Narwhal), 

The BIG Book of Engagement Strategies, & 50 Ways to Engage Students with Google Apps

From Amazon or Barnes & Noble