Why should I vote when it is most unlikely that my vote will make any difference to the outcome?  Why should I pay my taxes when they are an insignificant droplet in the national budget?  Why should I switch off my lights when doing so will have a negligible impact on climate change?  In other words, why should I not ‘free ride’ on the decent actions of others?

Since it was first identified in the mid-20th century, this ‘free rider’ problem has been puzzling political scientists and philosophers.  It is especially relevant now as we approach the US Presidential election, an event that (unlike previous US elections) is rightly attracting unprecedented attention outside the US - partly because we have some interesting candidates for a change, and partly because many more people outside the US now appreciate that although they don’t have any vote in this election, the results have the potential to affect them at least as much as the elections in their own countries.

The Free Rider problem (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-rider/) arises because there are some issues and situations where the scale of collaboration is so large that the contribution of any individual is negligible.  In such situations, although an individual may very much want want a particular outcome, the reality is that one person’s input has almost zero impact.  Therefore, from the individual’s point of view, it seems entirely rational to Free Ride. 

Global warming is a good example of this.  At a planetary scale, we understand if everyone collaborated to reduce harmful emissions, if we stopped cattle raising (which generates more global warming greenhouse gases, as measured in CO2 equivalent, than all the world’s transportation) and stopped cultivating rice (which also produces enormous quantities of greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide), we could achieve some extremely desirable outcomes.  And yet, at the scale of the individual, it makes no practical difference whatsoever to global warming whether I, for example, leave my light turned on or not.  The same arguments could be made about paying taxes, contributing to trade unions or voting.  It seems to be a genuine philosophical paradox - people collectively want a certain outcome, but at the individual level, it is actually more rational to enjoy the benefits of the sacrifices others make without sacrificing personally to achieve the desired outcome.

Does this mean that Free Riding might be morally offensive?  If 100 people walk across a lawn in a single track, it will probably kill the grass.  But if one person walks across a lawn, there will be no discernible impact.  Therefore, which pedestrian committed the offensive act that tipped the balance and started to kill the grass?  This is similar to the age-old philosophical question of ‘how many grains of sand are needed before we have a pile of sand?’.  There is clearly a cut-off point, but in reality it is probably impossible to define, or even know.  It seems absurd, for example, to define a pile of sand as comprising, say, 500 grains of sand or more, and then try to justify convincingly why a collection of 499 grains could not be a pile - this is the problem of vagueness.

In the situation of global warming, a similar situation can be said to exist.  It is most unlikely that the emissions from one coal-based power station make any significant difference between the earth warming or not.  There is a threshold of impact beyond which changes will occur, but it is a vague band, and our collective fear seems to be that perhaps we may be approaching that threshold, if we are not already there.  And yet, anyone can reasonably say that their light bulb, or their power station, or even all the power stations in their own country, are unlikely to make very much difference, given the enormous scale of the issue.

Does it therefore follow that people are free to act in a way that is environmentally unfriendly?  In Kantian ethics, which supports ‘the Golden Rule’, the solution seems easy - I should act in a way that I want all others to act.  Since I don’t want others to leave their light bulbs on, then neither should I.  Or, to express it a little more formally, Kant would argue that in deciding whether a certain action is ethical or not, we need to ask ourselves “what would be the consequences if everyone did it?”, and the answer to the question should govern our behaviour.   If the answer to the question is something inherently bad, such as chaos, anarchy, extinction or disaster, then quite simply, we shouldn’t do it!  In reality, of course, it is never as easy as this.  Most political scientists acknowledge that the Free Rider problem poses a real dilemma.

In a book to be published in June this year, Richard Tuck claims that when considering free riding, we should probably differentiate between those cases where the threshold of making a difference is genuinely vague (such as building a pile of sand or global warming) and those situations where there is a clear point at which a difference or a change occurs, even though any individual’s actions might be miniscule, such as voting.  When I vote, and if I have supported the winning candidate, then mathematically it is actually quite likely that my vote was part of the bundle of votes that helped to determine the outcome.  I know personally that this was so in the recent Australian election where I was registered to vote in the country’s most marginal electorate, and the final result came down to just 143 votes.  In this case, all but the last 143 votes helped to get the candidate elected, so to say that these votes were inconsequential would be absurd.  My vote may not have been necessary to affect the outcome, but in conjunction with the votes of others, it would have been sufficient to affect the result.

But what about the genuinely vague areas such as global warming or building a pile of sand?  It is probably fair to say that at some level, although we cannot specify where, there is the equivalent of a threshold at which change occurs.  Therefore, from the point of view of my collaborative action, it is rational for me to approach such a situation in the same way that I would approach a clear-cut threshold case, such as voting.  The difference is that I am more likely to encounter a variety of opinions about how much action will be enough to make the difference.  I think it follows from this that we DO have a responsibility to act in an environmentally sound way -  provided other people are also acting in the same way.

At a more extreme level, however, it is sometimes argued from a moral or religious perspective that we do have a duty to act in a certain way even if others are not acting similarly or towards the same goal.  If we ignore (probably unrealistically, and maybe even undesirably) the religious or cultural element of this argument, then the sense of duty of the individual would become much more questionable.  If everyone else is not acting in a way that will achieve a certain goal through collaboration, but without collaboration the goal will not be achieved, then pragmatically it becomes irrational or even preposterous for an individual NOT to go with the majority and Free Ride.  This suggests that the argument of Darwinists such as Richard Dawkins that morality is not rooted in religious beliefs may be simplistic at best, and downright wrong at worst.  In practical terms, though, the apparent rationality of Free Riding certainly highlights the importance of collaborating and networking with others if genuine results are to be achieved, rather than claiming for example, that having changed our light bulbs, then we have “done our bit” to address global warming!

The reason I have been reflecting on the question of Free Riding is a particular controversy that has been occupying many people in our College community over the past couple of weeks.  As people within the College know, our Director of Studies, John Green, has decided not to sign a new contract for next year, citing as his reason the Board’s re-wording of certain sections of new staff contracts.  John has been especially concerned and vocal that in the the new contract, the freedom to speak out to the press without prior permission seems to be curtailed, and even more importantly for him, the term ‘marriage’ has been re-defined so that it now applies only to a union between a man and a woman, whereas the previous contract had been less specific.  John has decided not to “Free Ride”, but to take a stand on what he sees as discrimination against people in same-sex marriages.

In order to make his case, John wrote an article and submitted it to the UWC International Office for publication in United World.  However, the editorial staff of United World did not accept the article as they felt it was unsuitable for the nature of the publication.  John subsequently submitted his article for publication in LPCUWC’s in-house student literary journal, By The Way (BTW).  When he did so, the personnel in charge of BTW brought the article to my attention for consideration.  After reading John’s article, I was happy to authorise its publication in the spirit of encouraging a robust, healthy and positive debate within our College community.  I felt that John’s issues were contentious, but that did not make them any less important to discuss frankly and openly, and I believe this has been occurring since the article’s publication a few weeks ago.

I stand by my decision to allow the publication of John’s article, although I am aware that some (perhaps many) people feel publication of the article should not have been permitted - I  respect the opinions of those people (which have sometimes been expressed very clearly to me!) just as I hope that they can respect the reasons that I chose to allow its publication.  For those that haven’t seen it (and there can’t be many as I understand over 4000 copies have  now been sent or forwarded by e-mails in addition to those posted on various websites), you can read a copy of John’s article HERE.

A copy of the BTW article subsequently found its way into the hands of a reporter at the South China Morning Post, which published a piece on the so-called controversy (and a copy can be seen HERE).  In response to this article, the UWC International Board issued a statement (which can be seen HERE).

To get a complete picture of the debate, I think there is one more item that needs to be read, and this is the letter written to the LPCUWC community in February 2007 by the LPCUWC Board when the new staff contracts were issued.  This open letter specifically addresses John’s concerns and explains why the changes in wording to which he objects were made.  The Board’s position is that it is not trying to promote any particular view on marriage, but it is simply trying to accommodate the diversity of opinions by staying within the spirit and practice of Hong Kong law.  Although very few parents have spoken to me about this debate, those who have done so have tended to express their support for and appreciation of the Board’s position.  The Board’s letter can be read HERE.

John sees his issues as having wide significance for the entire UWC Movement.  I know that his view is supported by many, although in the interests of balance, I know many others in the UWC Movement who would dispute that view.  It seems that there is no clear consensus of opinion on the questions John is asking, which probably explains why some vigorous campaigning is currently taking place.  In any discussion or debate about this issue, I believe that the lack of consensus must be recognised and respected as solutions are explored - we are, after all, a movement that claims to celebrate diversity and which embraces people from many cultural backgrounds.

All the articles mentioned above have been posted on the UWC students’ discussion board, United Words (http://interuwcmag.wordpress.com/), which serves as an excellent forum for debate about issues in United World Colleges.  Perhaps surprisingly, given the significance of the questions John has raised, no comments whatsoever had appeared on this matter on United Words at the time of writing this blog.  It is in the same spirit of transparency that I am now writing this unusually long blog - I do think we need appropriate forums to discuss issues that are significant to individuals in our College, whether they are majority or minority viewpoints, and I think that all such discussions need to be as fully informed as possible, which is why I have included the links to various documents here also.

Whether or not it is agreed that John’s concerns are of wide interest for the UWC Movement, the specific matters that he identifies are of course contractual matters between John and the LPCUWC Board.  I apologise if this seems boring and legalistic, but that is the reality which should be remembered.  Specifically, John’s concern regarding the definition of marriage is really a disagreement with the definition of marriage in Hong Kong law, which is the source of the definition used by the Board.  The Board’s stance has been to abide by and conform to whatever the legal statutes in Hong Kong state; if the legal definition changes, then so will our contracts.  In that sense, a campaign against the Hong Kong Government’s definition of marriage and its related practices would seem to be a more appropriate, if considerably more ambitious task than targeting the LPCUWC Board for those people who have serious concerns about the definition of marriage being used.

At one level, this is of course a theoretical debate, as LPCUWC does not have any staff who are in same-sex marriages, which are currently being legally officiated in only a handful of places around the world (Belgium, Canada, Netherlands, South Africa, Spain and the US state of Massachusetts).  A quick check among my colleagues who are Heads at other UWCs confirmed that no UWC (as far as we are aware) currently has anyone on staff who is in a same-sex marriage relationship.

At another level, however, the issue is obviously very significant as a matter of principle to John and many others, and it does raise some very real and practical questions such as (a) to what extent should UWCs comply with local laws? (b) is the role of UWCs to respect and work within local cultures, or should they be working to reform and change local cultures if these are seen as discriminatory or out-of-step with international trends?, and (c) if UWCs are to be agents of change, then who is to be the arbiter of what laws, cultures and traditions should be respected and what should be changed?

A key element of the IB’s mission statement is understanding “that other people, with their differences, can also be right”.  In the environment of a United World College where cultural, religious, national, ethical and other differences abound, this reminder of the importance of celebrating a diversity of opinions must be honoured.  Ideally, it means that no-one should ever be forced into agreeing with a viewpoint that is contrary to their own, although the legally binding nature of contracts makes this an impossible ideal in practice - as John has concluded.

It therefore befits everyone in our community to discuss issues such as these openly and honestly, seeking a fully-informed balance of information, without appeals to misleading or logical fallacies, oversimplification or stereotyping.  It is essential that nothing should ever taken out of its context, as this can lead to distortion and manipulation.  Discussions must be conducted with courtesy and with an authentic sense of seeking to understand (if not necessarily agree with) others’ viewpoints.  To date, this is precisely the way I have seen the current debate conducted at LPCUWC, with mutual respect and sober analysis, and this is to the great credit of everyone in the LPCUWC community - it shows we are achieving something that is very rare and precious in our troubled world!

John has chosen not to ‘free ride’ on what he sees as the matters of principle that are concerning him.  Given that he is taking a lone stand in the manner insofar as he is the only person choosing not to sign a new contract, it could be claimed that his action (to repeat the words used earlier in this blog) is “irrational and preposterous” from a purely philosophical point of view.  This view would be reinforced by the fact that no-one in any UWC stands to benefit in a direct material way, even if the definition of marriage in the contract was changed tomorrow to conform to John’s viewpoint.  On the other hand, John is receiving considerable support from many diverse quarters such as LPCUWC graduates and some National Committees.  Perhaps this is the type of collaboration needed to reach that vague threshold required to bring change, even in a world where ‘free riding’ might be the more rational alternative.

The one thing I have not done in this blog, quite deliberately, is to express a personal opinion on the rights and wrongs of the central issue.  My aim has been to present the debate in as balanced and illuminating a way as I can in the hope of informing and enlightening, not provoking and inflaming.  I am sure you will appreciate that it would be highly inappropriate if I as the Principal of a United World College were to offer personal opinions in a public forum such as this on a contractual matter affecting one of my staff and the Board.  I do have an opinion on the issue, but it is not really relevant to anyone outside my immediate family or the Board - and neither of these groups has asked!

So to return to the ‘free rider’ problem - why should I write a long blog when it is most unlikely that my words will make any difference to any outcome?