As you know, I am a teacher. A public high school teacher, to be exact. As teachers and coaches, we are said to be held to a, "higher standard." What kind of standard? Legal? Moral? And if so, according to whose moral standard? In the past few years, due to various scandals and media frenzies over teacher behavior, schools have started to implement "HIB" training for all staff. HIB stands for harassment, intimidation and bullying. The main thrust of these types of trainings should be to help teachers identify HIB incidents in their classrooms, locker rooms and in the hallways to help maintain both physical and emotional safety for students and staff, but the presenters often make sure that teachers leave paranoid enough about everything in their lives to never even consider acting inappropriately in any way, shape or form (think about the worst kinds of sex ed classes where students are just shown pictures of diseased body parts and told to stay away from sex #noteffective). Why? Because these trainings are designed for more than the purpose of ensuring that students are safe in their learning and playing environments. These informational sessions are also inculcating teachers into self-censorship. The alternate interpretation of, "higher standard," can really be, "if you do anything wrong, you will be judged more harshly and personally for doing so," but that doesn't have as nice of a ring to it, so they went with the former. There is a level of anxiety provoked by HIB trainings and morality scares that keeps teacherss on their toes, looking out over their shoulder to see who is watching, and to potentially even report their coworkers to an authority figure. It also encourages teachers to report students to a "higher" authority for multifarious infractions instead of ever dealing with issues on their own. Obviously there are serious offenses that should be handled on a centralized basis, however, many of the teachers I know that actually have a good handle on discipline work through issues on their own. [aside: In the school in which I work, office detentions seem to do little to deter students from doing wrong. The same students end up on the detention roster over and over, as with the in-school suspension room. Repeat offenders end up in the "penalty box" month after month.]
So, I am held to a higher standard in both my "in" school and "out of" school behavior, but I should also defer to the central authority when it comes to making decisions on what is good, moral behavior (even though I am a supposed paragon of said behavior)? Confusing. And so when I start thinking about this title of the moral apex of society that has been bestowed upon me, I get a little miffed. Because I think it's hypocritical and a power move by those already in power. I am supposed to be a great teacher and live a clean life, but I am also not trusted with wielding power beyond the threshold of my classroom. If what I think would be an appropriate way of handling a situation is how I act, then am I not already fulfilling the duty of the higher standard? If, by nature, I am the higher standard over some regular Joe, than my opinion should be worth more, no? Shouldn't I be able to handle the issues within my room and in the school without deferring to a higher power? If I am held to a higher standard, is my boss held to an even higher one? What about the governor and politicians passing these laws?
What gives? It's all about obedience. It's not about safety and security or about positive role models, it's about maintaining a system for the system's sake. My compliance will help to prop up the hierarchy for another generation. The veiled attempt at making me think I will be helping children is a good one, and one that most people would not want to question. But, I'm that guy, so I am questioning it.
And while I was thinking about this entire scenario, I happened to read an excerpt in Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist in which Stephen Batchelor explicated his research on Buddha's life. He found that there were no real details on the formative years, and in fact, conflicting information about the Buddha's personal history. However, once Buddha became a teacher and gathered a following, everything he ever did was recorded, which reminded me of Jesus' life. Just like Buddha, the details on Jesus prior to his thirties is fuzzy. What were these guys doing in their twenties? Praying? Working? YOLO-ing? Well, I came to the conclusion that it probably matters very little as to what they were doing in that time and that their lives would be interchangeable with yours or mine up until they were fed up enough with the world to let it be known. So what led to their transformative experiences and subsequent perspective shifts? For one thing, it was the questioning of their current, static social order and their disobedience to it. Both Buddha and Jesus give up their attachments to this world. They don't tell their followers to completely mimic their lives and ways, but instead provide a model for behavior and thought. There is no list of commandments nor contracts that have to be signed to live like either of them - those institutionalized aspects come later through their more zealous followers, like Jesus' disciple, Paul.
I'm not suffering from a messianic delusion here, nor am I looking for martyrdom, but I do think that if I did happen to stand up for myself and people in the same situation, I would probably be reviled and not revered, because WE LIKE BEING OPPRESSED. It's easier to stay in a shitty situation than to stand alone or to risk losing security of a job, relationships, etc.
How do we challenge the existing order in a more meaningful way than writing angry Facebook statuses and standing around the water cooler bitching about how much our boss sucks? For one, that change has to come with considering what is actually in the realm of possibility for changing. Hoping that everyone will suddenly be on board when you make a moving speech is not going to pan out in the end. The continued weaving of connections and the slow formation of communities (pro tip: start with the few people who are the choir you've been preaching to for all those years) will ultimately pay off in the end because people within that community will likely be loyal not only to the ideas you share, but to each other as well. And although it PAINS me to admit this, there is a positive side to this gradualist approach. It's just annoying that when you already see the hidden message in the Magic Eye drawing that is life, you have to wait for everyone else to get their eyes unfocused enough to see it too.
PS: The ironic thing about this analogy is that I can't actually see those pictures in the Magic Eye drawings...
No comments:
Post a Comment