Rosemary McLeod (Sunday Star Times, today, A10) draws the very obvious parallels between the story of the father out with his boys, who, thanks to a teacher, now has a "record" for giving one of them a clip around the ear and yet another teacher seems to see nothing too serious with a gang of school bullys violating a student. Both teachers have displayed a serious lack of judgment.
Rosemary also makes a good point:
The fundamental problem with this is that good people are hard enough on themselves in any event, and don't need the full weight of the law sitting on their shoulders as a reason for trying harder. And the bad ones simply don't care.
So what is my point? If both teachers were community minded, they would have got involved with the situation. The first teacher could have stepped in and offered to help the Dad deal with his injured child and made sure the other didn't ride into traffic. They didn't need to call the police - they did because they didn't want to get involved and wanted to reduce the situation to "Dad is bad".
The second teacher, the Principal, also didn't want to get involved. He didn't want to report this to the board, he didn't want this to reflect on his job, he didn't want to deal with the bullys in any meaningful way and he certainly didn't want to empathise with the student who was attacked. He failed in his duty to get involved, and in this situation, it is a duty not only of conscience and ethics, but it was his job.
The place we live in is determined by the people who live in it. What we see here is a withdrawal from the community and and abrogation of responsibility by people who should know better. Take note of their example, think about it, make sure we find it unacceptable, and let's look out for opportunities to determine how we can live in the kind of community we expect.
Rosemary also makes a good point:
Here was a father spending time with his children, helping them learn to enjoy physical exercise, and taking on the challenge of teaching them to do so safely. He wasn't perfect, but who is?Much of the thinking from the law making authoritarians relies on making all people guilty of breaking a multitude of laws, and then the police or a government agency having the power to 'forgive them' and let them off with a warning. This is Sue Bradford's 'the law is working' mentality.
The fundamental problem with this is that good people are hard enough on themselves in any event, and don't need the full weight of the law sitting on their shoulders as a reason for trying harder. And the bad ones simply don't care.
So what is my point? If both teachers were community minded, they would have got involved with the situation. The first teacher could have stepped in and offered to help the Dad deal with his injured child and made sure the other didn't ride into traffic. They didn't need to call the police - they did because they didn't want to get involved and wanted to reduce the situation to "Dad is bad".
The second teacher, the Principal, also didn't want to get involved. He didn't want to report this to the board, he didn't want this to reflect on his job, he didn't want to deal with the bullys in any meaningful way and he certainly didn't want to empathise with the student who was attacked. He failed in his duty to get involved, and in this situation, it is a duty not only of conscience and ethics, but it was his job.
The place we live in is determined by the people who live in it. What we see here is a withdrawal from the community and and abrogation of responsibility by people who should know better. Take note of their example, think about it, make sure we find it unacceptable, and let's look out for opportunities to determine how we can live in the kind of community we expect.