The point of establishing a policy is to attempt to create an equality of outcome. Which is already deep in the commie zone.
The point is that the outcome, given the same inputs, will always be the same. This is, ostensibly, to eliminate internal biases and favoritism.
But at its core, it is a communist ideal. By becoming an abdication of the professional skill and personal responsibility of the individual, it is counter to American individualism.
The object of the American individualist is to strive, take risks, and expresses themselves in their own unique way. Uniqueness means the outcome can never be equal. By simply doing things their own way, they challenge the status quo, they expose themselves to make mistakes, and the possibility of huge success.
To do things they feel are right when other feel they are not.
To be sure, a committee approach is always… terrible. The only reason committees exist, the only reason shared responsibility exists is because people don’t want the risk.
If a committee made a decision and the decision was wrong, the committee is reprimanded and continues their work.
If an individual made a decision, particularly one that’s outside the “standard” policy, that individual has to be prepared to live with the consequences that will be doled out on them. But if the outcomes is positive, they need to be the ones who reap the accolades for it.
This is Americanism at its core. Someone stands on principle, takes risks, makes judgments, and either suffers the consequences or enjoys the rewards.
The point of policy it to take all that creativity , individuality, and drive it out of that decision, and into the hands of an often nameless, faceless, committee that is unaccountable because policy is policy. No one made the decision, it’s just the policy. Sure, someone wrote it, but it was probably more than one person.
The common theme here is abdication. Giving up responsibilities. Important ones.
Driving the creativity out of this process is particularly egregious because the situation where this is mostly notably abused is in schools and higher educational institutions.
Zero tolerance policies were one of the first brainchildren of this type of policy enforcement through stupidity.
Everyone understand the world is not black and white, but enforcing it as though it is changes nothing, and discourages all actors… Well, all GOOD actors.
Consider an individual in a creative institution, somewhere children learn, has an incident they have to apply their talents of discipline and discernment to determine what the punishment should be, if any.
This is a perfect instance for a good quality teacher, the kind of teacher we all hope our children get, to step up and say “Hey, this is a good kid, who does good things, and does good work. I saw him standing up for another kid, punishment is not the right course of action to take, I don’t support this, we’re not doing it.”
This is where the child learns, possibly for the first time in their life, that when you do the right thing, good things happen, and good people will stand up with you.
When that teacher is told it’s not their decision because it’s a matter of policy, that teacher is discouraged from applying their personal knowledge to the situation, that extensive understanding of the child to the situation. This is not something where you are using an impartial arbitrator, this is someone who has skin in the game. Someone who is involved with this kid, someone who can make a decision.
This can be a vice principal, as they frequently fell into the disciplinary role in my upbringing. I know this because… Well, I needed discipline. But I knew that vice principal, because I visited him and talked with him so often. He understood me, and he knew when I needed a punishment and when I did not. To take that personal relationship, that discernment, that decision, that understanding away from it, teaches a child, “Well, it doesn’t really matter if what you did was right or wrong, what matters is that you broke a rule.”
How is this an American standard anywhere? How is this a standard in the schools our children learn in? It’s ludicrous.
How How many times times we seen Zero Tolerance policies occur and the school, the board, the administrators, and everyone involved steps out of their office and says, “Wow, We just suspended a kid for biting a pop tart into the shape of a gun. We are absurd. But that’s policy. So what could we do?”
As if this thing called “policy” is some kind of spectral haunting that’s happening in the school that they have no power over. Like there’s some kind of paranormal activity that’s outside their scope or control. It’s like a giant elephant that goes trampling through the should every once in a while, and everyone’s just like, “Man, we lost two kids that time. I sure wish we could do something about that elephant. Oh well.”
They ARE the elephant. They are the policymakers, they are the deciders, and all it takes is for one person to stand up and say, “This is ridiculous, I’m not enforcing this rule PERIOD. I’m not suspending the kid for this, if you want to fire me for it, fire me for it.”
And if someone wants to fire them for it, then suddenly it’s NOT the elephant! It’s not the ghost! It is whoever performed that firing. “Well, he violated the policy and the school board decided–” “Oh!” The crowd shouts, “The School board decided! Why is the school board deciding this is the reasonable course of action?” We live In the perfect age to handle this! Think of the public outcry over such a decision, and the social media scorn that would be heaped upon the ones who enforced the policy. Momentum like that could kick off a campaign to vote everyone out of the school board and vote in new people.
This perfunctory action of policy would suddenly become a lightning rod just because someone stood up and said, “No.” Because someone took a principled stance. Isn’t that what we’re supposed to be teaching our kids? Instead we teach, “Follow the rules or else. Doesn’t matter, right or wrong, follow the rules or else!”
© Copyright applies, details in sidebar