4 ms·
I think what he experienced is another manifestation of the same phenomena as zero-tolerance policies in schools; institutions ask their enforcers to suspend co
by Eelongate 5y ago
I think what he experienced is another manifestation of the same phenomena as zero-tolerance policies in schools; institutions ask their enforcers to suspend common sense and strictly enforce the letter of the law/guideline/etc, even in situations where any reasonable person would decide it made no sense. They do this because such common sense and gut feelings is how bias and prejudice might creep into their oh-so-perfect system.
It used to be that if a teacher saw a kid get bullied and then punch his bully back, the teacher was empowered to evaluate the situation using their best judgement, and punish the bully while congratulating the bullied kid who stuck up for himself. The system sees a problem with that; the teacher's perception of the incident might have bias and prejudice. The system's solution is to have zero tolerance for any violence and punish both students equally. The system's solution to the possibility of prejudice against one student is to ensure prejudice against both students.
- throaway46546 5y agoAt my school it was worse than that. Any one "involved" in a physical altercation would be suspended. Someone could walk up and punch you and you would be suspended for it. This obviously had a chilling effect on reporting. No more bullying. Problem solved.
- BeFlatXIII 5y agoSuch policies also justify and encourage excessive retribution. If you’re getting suspended whether you fight back or not, may as well cause some real damage to earn it.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- admax88qqq 5y ago> the teacher's perception of the incident might have bias and prejudice. I mean that's not entirely wrong either. Bullying was still a thing before zero tolerance policies. Not to say zero tolerance policies are the right solution, but personal bias _is_ a big problem when it comes to enforcement.
- Eelongate 5y agoOf course. Bias and prejudice is always a real concern. In situations where the teacher gets it wrong and punishes the bullied kid, the kid learns an unfortunate but useful lesson; that some agents of the system cannot be relied on. But the zero tolerance response to this circumstance ensures the bullied student is prejudiced against, judging him guilty before considering the facts of the individual circumstance. What does that teach the kid? That the system itself cannot be relied on.
- pope_meat 5y agoto be fair, that's a pretty valuable lesson to learn out here. it would be neat if we had a system we could rely on.
- bigger_inside 5y agowas about to comment the same thing. I teach future teachers, and I always say that_ everyone forgets their school math and chemistry lessons after cramming for the test. What sticks is learning how to survive in an unequal, dysfunctional system where you're the oppressed class, fighting among each other while you can't touch the people in power.
- collaborative 5y agoThis is how 95% of the world works. In most countries, people are conditioned to "join" the rulers from a very young age, and people who use critical thinking are a tiny minority (often invisible)
- raxxorrax 5y agoBut they did not establish how legislation has elevated itself from that.
- yosito 5y agoBullying is still a thing.
- raxxorrax 5y agoThey are right that everyone is biased, what they completely fail to establish is how they improved their own perception. Actions justified because of the presence of bias and prejudice very closely mirror religious dogma by a more objective metric.