On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 07:54:56 -0700, russ smith <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Back in the 1930's, politicians didn't use schools as pawns in naked
> political games.  "You want funding for more books?  Okay, implement
> this completely unrelated policy that my backers in the last
> election insist I get passed."

This is a rather naive view of the past that discounts entirely the
elements of overt social control built into public education.  It
is recalled that the prevalent model of public education in the
west is Prussian in origin and was developed in the mid 1800s as
much to engender a populace possessing cultural and social
solidarity with the interests of the state as providing a more
technically adept labour force.  To that end much of what is taught
in schools, particularly with respect to history and civic affairs,
is conditioned by overt political considerations. Consider the
recent events in China with respect to Japan's revised history
textbooks and the vast gulf that separates European and American
treatment of both world wars in the classroom.

It has always been thus, for all publicly funded and state
supported activities are, by their very nature, political in origin
and have political outcomes as their principal goal.  Even private
institutions, such as organized religions and some large
corporations, have overt social conditioning as an explicit part of
their education programs. There is simply no escaping this aspect
of education.  The contentious issues of social policy that are now
evidencing themselves over overt control of student behaviour is
more a slipping of the veil of respectability that formally covered
these facts with a veneer of self-denial regarding their existence.

The real issue is the apparent degrading of social cohesion brought
about by many disparate factors, but which will most likely be
traced to vastly improved and inexpensive communications
technology.  As is usual in such intractably complex situations,
the desire for simple direct action promotes equally simplistic
solutions to the "problem."  A "problem" that everyone acknowledges
exists but which, strangely, no one can express in a lucid manner
that even a simple majority can agree with.  So we get such
inanities as "zero-tolerance."

Well, zero-tolerance is ultimately an admission by authority that
the situation is no longer a problem, it has become part of the
environment, and that the difficulty of administering its
consequences has swamped the ability of the institution to deal
with it.  The result is that individuals are forced to bear the
iniquities of a system that is breaking down from its own weight
and lack of internal consistency.  It is a Potemkin village
approach to institutional reform.

I give as an example of institutional cognitive dissonance a true
story, one that happened (is happening) to a close friend of my
son.  This youth was home schooled, so far as I can determine for
no terribly profound reason, and, as far as I can discern to no
great effect, good or bad.  He is intelligent and diligent in most
matters and a bit of a layabout when he can get away with it.  His
character is such that he is always welcome in my home and I am not
known to be a tolerant man.

He entered the parochial school system here in Ontario (we possess
in this jurisdiction, as part of the original terms of the
confederation of Canada, a publicly funded Roman Catholic School
system) to obtain his high-school diploma.  He has maintained an A-
average in the college/academic stream.  He was active in school
social activities and was a volunteer stage-hand for the school
drama productions.  I say was because around 7:00 p.m. last
Thursday night, when he showed up at the stage door of the theatre
where the production was being staged, he was stopped by two
security guards and found to have in his possession a multiplex
pocket-knife of the kind commonly found as part of a Boy Scout's
uniform.

Now, this is hardly surprising behaviour.  I carry a pocket-knife
on my person at all times and have done so since I enlisted in the
navy at 17, where it was REQUIRED.  However, the rules state that
students may not bring weapons to school and apparently in today's
society a pocket-knife can have no other function.  In this case
the young man surrendered the knife to security without much
thought and proceeded to enter the premises to carry out his
duties. In retrospect he would have been wiser to turn away from
the door.

What happened next is the type of Kafkaesque nightmare that only
hierarchical bureaucracies are capable of. The security guards,
employees of a private company engaged by the school board for this
event, turned the knife over to a vice-principal of the school who,
on the next day, suspended the boy for 21 days which, in
consequence, means that he is not allowed to write his final
examinations.

Now, I do not know how society is served by taking a year out of
the life of a young man for carrying an object that is not, in
itself, illegal to possess or carry and representatives of which,
without any doubt, were carried on the persons of a number of the
members of the audience that night, none of whom were searched.  I
further do not see how a multiplex knife can be considered anything
other than a tool unless it is actually used to threaten somebody.
I also have grave reservations about a system that administers such
draconian penalties without due process.

I have no doubt that had that vice-principal been faced with
orchestrating a hearing and producing evidence before an impartial
tribunal who then would decide on appropriate action then this
situation would have been handled in a far more enlightened manner.
 I have observed that having to justify ones actions to those that
can overturn them has an amazingly moderating effect on ones own
judgements.  But, mainly because he did not have to answer to
anyone else, he took the action he did without much evident
consideration of the overall social implications. The sad fact is
that students are still considered as somehow less than human and
continue to be subjected to such arbitrary and callous treatment.

My point is not that the boy should not have been confronted with
the issue of carrying a knife onto school property and the risk
that this action potentially posed to others.  It is that zero-
tolerance is simply a euphemism for intolerance and often serves as
nothing more than a shield for those that enjoy inflicting pain on
others while hiding behind the skirts of respectability granted by
institutional sanction.  It is at root no more than an
administrative convenience that permits the institution to evade
grappling with the complexity of the underlying issues and
difficulties by diverting the public with a great show of having
done something dramatic, notwithstanding that this something is
usually completely ineffectual if not actually counter-productive.

When regulations harm the very people whose protection ostensibly
provided the rationale therefore, then what is actually being
protected is the people running the institution making the
regulations and not the persons in their care.  The disputes that
are going on within the public schools systems are mostly proxies
for the dissatisfaction arising from growing awareness that schools
frequently are not, in fact, the neutral and benevolent
institutions that they present themselves to be.  There is much
good in public education, but there is a great deal wrong with how
it is administered and it is not the students that are to blame for
that. I see no reason why they should be forced to pay the price
for our inadequacies as parents and as citizens.

--
     *** e-mail is not a secure channel ***
mailto:byrnejb.<token>@harte-lyne.ca
James B. Byrne                Harte & Lyne Limited
vox: +1 905 561 1241          9 Brockley Drive
fax: +1 905 561 0757          Hamilton, Ontario
<token> = hal                 Canada L8E 3C3

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *