I was tempted to make this jaw-dropping incident an Ethics Quiz, but my mind is unalterably made up. While mistakes are not unethical, staggering stupidity on the part of professionals is, even if one of the consequences of that stupidity is the good faith belief that a cruel and irresponsible act is the right thing to do.
Less than a week after the Sandy Hook shootings, Greer Phillips, the principal in East Harlem’s P.S. 79 decided that this was the perfect time to conduct an unscheduled, unannounced lockdown drill. Not a fire drill. A “a stranger with a gun who might kill everybody is in the school!” drill.
Brilliant!
Thus at 10 am on December 18, a woman’s voice came over the Horan School’s loudspeaker and announced in shaky tones that there was a “shooter” or “intruder” in the building, and that teachers needed to “get out, get out, lockdown!”
Did I mention that the school serves students with special needs like autism, severe emotional disabilities, cerebral palsy and other disorders? Boy, I bet they were fooled! What a great drill! I mean, it scared the piss out of the teachers; imagine how those students must have felt!
“We really thought we were not going home that night. It was probably the worst feeling I ever had in my life,” one of the teachers told the New York Times. Nobody had been warned. Nobody. The principal just did this on a whim. When anxious police officers arrived on the scene, that was when they were informed that it was just a drill.
A petition is being prepared for New York Mayor Bloomberg to have Phillips removed from her post. There shouldn’t need to be a petition. In fact, the school should hold a “delirious and irresponsible principal” drill, and keep the students out of classes until this dangerous man is working at Arby’s where he belongs.
It is not unethical to be stupid. People are born stupid, and lots of them. It is an unfortunate way to be. They make bad decisions, louse up jobs and relationships, hurt friends, relatives, family members, co-workers and strangers without meaning to, and frequently become burdens on society, especially now, when life is needlessly complicated and actively hostile to intellectually inadequate individuals. It is unethical, however, to accept a position of trust, especially one in which you are entrusted with the welfare of children, when you are stupid, stupid being defined as, “It never occurred to me that right after a crazy gunman went into an elementary school and slaughtered 20 children wouldn’t be the perfect time to make the special needs kids in my school think the same thing was happening to them.” It is also unethical to place a stupid individual in such a position of trust, and it is criminally unethical to leave such an individual in a position of trust after she has proven to the world beyond a reasonable doubt that he is dumber than a cardboard wall safe full of Pauly Shore videos, Rosie O’Donnell blog posts and Michele Bachmann history lessons.
_________________________________________
Pointer: Rick Jones. Sorry this was ineligible for the Curmie, Rick!
Facts: New York Times, Madam Noire
Graphic: Stolafcreatingspectacle
Ethics Alarms 
You mean he didn’t even announce “this is a drill” ahead of time or give a prior briefing to his teachers? If he had, I could understand. But as a teacher himself (I assume!) he should have further realized how children have a shakey line of demarcation in their minds when it comes to pretend vs reality. But even in the Armed Forces, you announce a drill prior to sounding battle stations!
This was more than a foolish whim on Mr. Phillips’ part. It was lunacy that might easily have led to tragedy in itself. Not to mention the terrible fright it must have given those children. Of course, if the New York school system acts in its usual manner, the worst that will happen to this guy is that he’ll be given a useless desk job at district HQ at the same pay rate.
I couldn’t agree more. We all need to realize that government schooling is being run by stupid people. The fact that they are imparting knowledge (or non-knowledge is more precise) says a lot. Bloomberg focuses more what size soft drinks people can drink than getting rid of an incompetent school administrator. It’ll take the parents to stop acting like sheep and demand this principle be removed.
Worse, nothing has happened to this Principal or her administration yet. She is still in power. And is now continuing her campaign to intimidate and punish anyone who speaks out against this. It has been over 30 days and none of these kids’ parents have been informed. None of these 300 kids received any mandatory post-trauma care.
Incredible. I keep hearing story after story out of the NYC public schools that, even in this benighted era, challenge credulity. What kind of children will we be turning loose on the country after they’ve been “educated” by the depraved and the insane?
Stunningly stupid. Unannounced on the timing of the drill is one thing (although this close to Sandy Hook demands rescheduling), but to fail to describe it as a drill in the P.A. announcement is inexcusably traumatizing to the students. Further, the police responded to the school unaware that it was a drill. Talk about a recipe for disaster.
Some people fire themselves. This one should not require a petition.
You mean that the police responded to this without knowing it was a drill? For that alone, Phillips should be in jail.
Amen. Like that time I decided to run an unannounced drill on local bank preparedness with a mask and a gun. Boy, THAT took a ton of explaining. The cops were downright hostile.
At 10:01 a.m., a woman dialed 911 from her cellphone and said she had heard a message over the loudspeaker “that there was an intruder in the school, and that she was in the class with her students.”…When (police) arrived a minute later, school officials told them that it was just a drill.
Unreal.
Others called their loved ones to say good bye. As they did, doors were pushed against them and they pushed back. The doors were pushed by administrators and their teams posing as shooters. Please sign, facebook, and tweet. The media can’t help us unless we have videos and photos.
http://chn.ge/TgjLDj
“Some sins trail their own penance” … Quote that I love from something I’ve read. Forget who wrote that quote.
One thing that is GOOD about this sort of thing; it is a HUGE help with finding out where the serious flaws are in safety and protection of people. School employees; teachers and students are reacting naturally given the feigned “emergency” and everyone learns where IMPROVEMENT needs to be made to increase the level of safety for any future ‘real’ catastrophic attack. You could write a ‘pro’ and ‘con’ to your topic in the ‘middle’ of your article–then go back to the criticism in your closing. It is not ALL BAD that professionals are preparing unannounced drills: ESPECIALLY if in some haphazard chance that a killer may attack (without prior notice), at some point. Better to be safe; and save lives, than sorry. I’d like to know more about the “full story” behind their reasoning. So many people criticize; fault find and complain either way–at least I appreciate “two” sides of the coin instead of fixating entirely on the negative of any Topic. I can be sure to state that name calling “dumber than cardboard” and “stupid” and etc… is ridiculous. Obviously, anyone in that ‘position’ in life worked their way upward bound because he was not ‘stupid’ and etc. Just saying; there are always two sides to any topic on earth–we’ve heard the negative, with deeper insight I’m sure anyone can find the positive aspects of the story.
I can think of a couple.
Please don’t send him to Arby’s. He might attempt the same lunacy there.
Smile.
Ronni: The issue here is not about holding drills, but doing them right and responsibly so that they achieve some good. For the reasons I previously mentioned, this was NOT one of those times.
Hello Steven, I understand that people are unhappy with the “way” the school leadership went about doing it: “(pretending)” that it is a real issue, without providing advance notice. The shooters do not give “advance” notice and people (employees and students) do not “act” the same to preserve their own safety with “advance notice” as they do when they think it is the “real McCoy” underway. There is a great deal of benefit that comes of abrupt drills like this. Thank you for making sure I understand, Have a great day too…. Ronni
“I understand that people are unhappy with the “way” the school leadership went about doing it.”
Ronni–are you serious? “People are upset” that a drill suggesting mortal peril to emotionally disturbed and otherwise challenged children was handled (let me see) incompetently, recklessly, stupidly, dangerously, incompetently (twice–it was unbelievably incompetent), foolishly, impulsively, irresponsibly and unprofessionally? Any one who isn’t “upset”—you, perhaps?—seriously underestimates the wrongfulness of someone entrusted with child welfare exhibiting any of these characteristics, which are antithetical to the role of school administrator.
“Shooters don’t give advance notice” is a ridiculous rationalization for this signature act of stupidity. All schools were traumatized by the Sandy Hook shooting; to pull such a stunt in such close proximity was cruel (forgot that one!) and bordered on sadistic. Any rational balance of the likelihood of a similar event (slimmer than slim) and the traumatic effect of doing it so soon after a horrible school tragedy (considerable) with the benefits of holding such an unannounced drill in such proximity to the tragedy (NONE) would cause any sentient being above the genus of an annelid worm to conclude that it was a terrible, not merely bad, idea.
The idea of drills for children is to train them what to do, not to scare the crap out of them in the process. I never, never went through a fire drill as a child without knowing it was a drill. But I would have known what to do were there a real fire. We do not train people in CPR by having an actor feign a heart attack in front of them. We do not train life guards by making them think people are drowning when they are not. Police and fire fighters drill–they are not tricked into believing they are real emergencies. The military hold war games and simulation—it doesn’t deceive the soldiers that they are really being attacked…AND THESE ARE ADULTS, who are not going to be traumatized and have nightmares as a result.
I honestly believed that this principal’s conduct was so obviously indefensible that no one, absolutely no one, would be tempted to defend such a Grade A dolt. He is a stupid and irresponsible man, who has achieved a position in which stupid is dangerous. There are not two sides to such conduct. Claiming that there is just encourages more of it.
Unbelievable.
I APPRECIATE your input, and have read each and every word of your post. Thank you. Of course, you make excellent points there, and I understand you very well. You are in good company indeed with your points, I do not “disagree” with the points you’ve brought out. I also agree with my points as well. Anyway, thank you for taking the time to write your viewpoints, I respect your views…. Ronni
ARRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Courage, Jack!
AKA
Can we all just agree that our two opposing viewpoint be considered equally valid, even though logic says that is impossible, especially in light of my viewpoint being thoroughly discredited?
Exactly. Next up: “We’ll agree to disagree.” No we won’t. Not when you’ve offered nothing of substance to validate your argument.
Ronni, as a police chief who coordinates lockdown and active shooter drills with several school districts, I can assure you that this is a train wreck of stupidity. Failing to at least notify the police and then allowing students or staff to believe that an armed intruder is in the building is inexcusable.
I’d throw in that active shooter drills are a train wreck in stupidity anyway. This one was just a couple of orders of magnitude worse.
in response to Modern Knight:
[“Ronni, as a police chief who coordinates lock-down and active shooter drills with several school districts, I can assure you that this is a train wreck of stupidity. Failing to at least notify the police and then allowing students or staff to believe that an armed intruder is in the building is inexcusable.
I’d throw in that active shooter drills are a train wreck in stupidity anyway. This one was just a couple of orders of magnitude worse.”]
START OF REPLY: Hello! There are many books written about the topic of “smart” people making dumb choices. In General I simply point out that many “smart people” make poor choices: the ‘person’ his or herself is not an entirely defective individual because of a poor choice. Nothing is black and white on earth. I like that you write respectfully pointing your comment to the “choice” is a train wreck of stupidity and that the “act or choice itself” is inexcusable. You are not condemning any “individual” and you are not name calling the individual. That always appeals to me when we give other human beings on earth the respect “in general” in this lifetime. There are truly ‘defective’ people on earth and One blunder (made public) does not “a defective person” make. I do not know the FULL story of this specific topic and of that, I am SURE. However, I always greatly appreciate it when we as human beings give other humans the respect of human decency and leave the total person condemnation out of the equation when they (in general no matter the topic) make one poor or dumb or bad choice. POINT TAKEN behind what you wrote, INDEED, and as I wrote before, I DO NOT disagree with the various overarching points being made ‘yours included’ I especially love your approach to NOT ATTACK the person, but to attack the poor stupid failure behind the bad choice made in the E.Harlem drill ordeal. Thanks for sharing your meaning. Again: Point taken…. Have a great day…. Ronni
In the military, we often run drills by surprise. However, they’re usually after lots of drills that we know are drills, so the actions can become intuitive.
Yes, I can see that—the final stage of preparedness, after considerable drills that are labelled as such, would be such surprise drills. I hope you can tell me that the military personnel involved in such surprise drills aren’t autistic, emotionally troubled, and under 18. And presumably the officers know its a drill, right?
Yup.
The most valuable tests in life are ALWAYS unexpected and ALWAYS highly stressful.
However, even in the military we never ran *surprise drills* with LIVE AMMUNITION.
We ran live ammunition drills, with rounds impacting dangerously close to friendly forces, but they were NEVER surprise drills.
Because as realistic as we can make training to be, eventually there is a point where you say, “Ok, we’ve trained as realistically as possible without ACTUALLY killing our own people. When the real deal happens, we had better hope the training sank in”
I was assigned to a unit whose mission included replicating the enemies of our nation so other units could train against it. We were damn good at this, and even went so far as to look the part, beards and all. One day, 4 members from my platoon received a mission to act as aggressors against the security gates of our fort.
On the day of the drill, I sent my guys on their merry way with their assignment, weapons, and blank ammunition. I found out somewhat late in the game that this was to be a surprise drill. I immediately questioned exactly how much of a surprise? Turned out the gate guards were going to be armed like normal with live ammunition. NO SIR. My soldiers were not about to simulate an attack against actually armed guards whose training included deadly force. LUDICROUS. Needless to say they adjusted the scenario appropriately.
Now, imagine that scenario appropriately downgraded to an elementary school level. That’s what that principal executed. Poorly planned on many levels.
Man, did you do right. You probably saved some lives.
I make no guarantees about my shipmate’s sanity, although they were all extremely professional. I, nor anyone else should have such expectations from a school setting, which is why I think this whole thing is so mindblowingly wrongheaded (assuming there wasn’t malevolent intent,, which it feels vaguely like to me).
I understand the malevolent intent suspicion, because it’s hard to believe anyone could be this stupid. Even Hanlon’s Law has limits. But why would a principal in charge of such vulnerable children be intentionally cruel to them?
Does there have to be a reason to be intentionally cruel? Maybe. If you’re looking for one, consider the fact that disabled people are considered of lesser worth than able-bodied people, along with being viewed as defective, inconvenient, expensive, burdensome, stressful to be around, scary, and tragic, with lives not worth living. Then consider he fact that not everyone in a position of power over disabled people is an angel. The abuse of disabled people is common in institutional settings, and it has been so for generations.
I’m not saying the principal was intentionally cruel. I don’t know what was in his mind. But if he was, he wouldn’t be the first, by a long shot. He’d be a reflection of a society in which the vulnerable are treated with cruelty every day by people with power over them.
Ronni: As a veteran, I understand drills and the way they should be conducted- believe me. I also understand it from the child’s point of view. When I was a young schoolboy in Beaumont TX, we routinely conducted fire drills and “duck and cover” at my school- the latter for both tornadoes and atomic attack! But we always knew it was a drill. That’s to prevent panic and unnecessary risk to the participants. If you drill often enough, then when the real thing comes along, you follow your training. As anyone can tell you; in an emergency situation, panic is the big killer. Good, responsible training is the answer.
Hello Steven… Yes, I understand what you have written about “drilling” often enough so as to make the procedure as much second nature as is possible. And, you’ve made valid points too. True. It is also true my point as well. Thanks for taking the time to address me, I am reading your thoughts and appreciate your comments here. … Ronni
I do not disagree…. Point taken.
“One thing that is GOOD about this sort of thing; it is a HUGE help with finding out where the serious flaws are in safety and protection of people.” – Ronni
I assume you mean that they found out the principal was the serious flaw?
I’d agree with THAT.
Smart People; make dumb choices…. true truth.
Let’s abstract this:
People make mistakes. Mistakes have characteristics that can be defined by frequency an severity.
Let’s apply this:
Good people and smart people make infrequent mistakes that can be corrected. Unless the severity of the mistake warrants action.
This principle could have discovered the cure for cancer, saved 30 people from a burning bus, twice!, single handedly captured Osama bin laden, received 2 Nobel peace Prizes and never had an argument with his wife in his life. Then he could still do this drill and the error of the drill is still severe enough to warrant his removal as principal.
But even with that fake hypothetical. The principle of signature significance dictates that we have few moments in life to show how we typically behave, therefore the way we behave during those few moments are by probability a good sample of how we behave in those situations most if not all the time.
And I agree, mistakes can be bad and still be correctable and therefore forgivable and ‘teachable’ without removing a person, but some ‘mistakes’ are too severe to maintain a person in their current status.
Running such a “drill” without informing the police first was terribly inappropriate, and costly- and potentially dangerous.
There is nothing good about adding PTSD to a future situation. Admin had already known which phones and doors didn’t work, and no one was given any instruction at all. Instead they forced teachers to attempt to call for help from broken phones and use their bodies to push against broken doors. Teachers cited that they emailed about all those things months prior.
There are ZERO security experts who will say this was effective and has not made this school LESS safe.
Am I too tough on Ronni? I don’t think so.
The reticence of so many people to declare that conduct is wrong and say so without twisting themselves (and logic)into grotesque shapes by trying to show that there are “two sides,: and “its just a difference of opinion” and “he just sees it differently” and “he has a right to his opinion” and “look for the positive” when there cannot possibly be one is why it defining base-line standards is so impossibly difficult, Yes, there are many, many areas and kinds of conduct where reasonable people may disagree, but not every kind of conduct. Reactions like Ronni’s just give permanent cover to the worst of the incompetents and frauds among us, by falsely arguing that everything they do, no matter what harm it may cause, has a good side. Some conduct has no good side, and we need to able to recognize it, and call it what it is.
Hello Jack, you are not “too tough on Ronni” as I’m not swayed emotionally by your viewpoints. I also do not wholeheartedly agree with you on various points along the way either. You’ve often taken an ‘extremist’ point of view on many topics: Your view is good, mine is not. Few things in life are exactly black and white.
Even, for example, homicide is not murder when intent is absent. Murder requires the “intent” to kill another human being. The word homicide is used in law to describe any death where another person is at fault, but there are “mitigating circumstances” that can influence the charge of homicide. When someone is convicted of murder, however, they are not only convicted of a homicide, but also the malicious “intent.”
I’m merely pointing out that my viewpoint does not CANCEL OUT what ‘in part’ your viewpoint is about this “school drill” subject. Besides all the name calling and extreme judgement on your end, I agree with your points and have written this in prior comment. Many brilliant, intelligent, highly educated specialists make poor choices–it might not mean the “entire person” is defective, (stupid, dumb as cardboard) and all the other solid set in stone negative judgments pointed at the “entire person.” Obviously, he did not evolve to his position of employment through being, as you put it “dumb as cardboard.”
All too often people destroy entire lives of other people because they detest something the person has done that was truly wrong, or bad. The choice people make in life to do ‘this or that’ (generally speaking) can be wrong, bad, poor, dangerous and so forth–it does not mean the entire person is defective: “just the choice” in that one issue may well have been or resulted in a bad way (or wrong, bad, dangerous etc.) Name-calling is unethical “don’t you think.” Ronni
This is an ethics blog. Ethics involves trust. Some conduct is so extreme as to forfeit trust, or the right to be trusted. I refer frequently to signature significance—conduct that someone who is ethical literally will never do. The same goes for stupidity. I do not believe someone of sufficient competence and judgment to be a school principal ever, literally ever, would do something like this.
Calling someone stupid who does something only a stupid person would do is not name-calling. Stupid has meaning, and it describes conduct and people. Yes, I believe this is conduct that is especially stupid, and thus the enhanced version of stupid in the post, some of which, I think most readers can discern, is stylistic excess for effect.
Your position that a stupid person cannot reach positions of responsibility flies in the face of history and experience. Stupidity is relative, of course, but this was an objectively stupid act, and, as I said, of signature significance, in the sense that no one who isn’t objectively stupid would do it. Ever.
Nobody has a right to positions of great responsibility, and when such individuals abuse their trust, there is nothing the least bit unjust about them facing the consequences. If the principal has, and he has, shown himself incapable of doing the tasks required in his chosen field, then nobody is “destroying his life” by making certain he doesn’t stay in that field. He “destroyed his life.”
Your kind of namby-pamby excuses and rationalizations allow incompetent to get chance after chance to harm individuals, organizations, and society. You think it is kind and reasonable, but it is not. It is why we can’t fire bad teachers, why incompetent leaders keep getting re-elected, why fraudsters and scam artist keep getting opportunities to pray on the trusting. You are undoubtedly a good and well-intentioned person, but you are refusing to think, and no, I don’t have respect for that. Trying to rationalize this principal’s conduct is also signature significance.
I am a former criminal lawyer, by the way, and your discourse on homicide was pointless and irrelevant.
And there is this: simply saying that you are not “swayed” is inadequate and lazy. Multiple commenters have explained that effective drills are not done so as to convince those involved that the event is real, and have thoroughly expounded on why. They have pointed out, correctly, that this is not only not a common practice, but a disapproved and a dangerous practice. Are you swayed by that? If not, why not? Do you have counter-examples? I and others have explained why this is especially a bad approach for children. If you believe otherwise, tell us. Can you cite any authorities who agree with you, or schools that hold such drills? I pointed out that holding such a drill in such close proximity to a traumatic tragedy made this an especially bad idea, and that it was not necessary. Do you disagree? Based on what?
You began by defending the drill as having some “good” points, then later argued that wrongful or mistaken acts shouldn’t be the measure of an employee. So was as it a good thing to do, or a bad idea? If it was a really bad idea, why doesn’t that qualify it as stupid? You’re not making an argument; saying “I’m not swayed” isn’t an argument. Your initial contention was knocked down authoritatively, and your passive-aggressive response was “I respect your point of view.” We’ve seen this before. It’s obnoxious. If you have a coherent argument, make it. Otherwise, you’re just being obstinate and stubborn, but politely, and refusing to deal with the issue, which is, “Was this responsible and competent conduct? Should such a person be trusted, who has shown such miserable judgment?”
BOOK to read:
“Why Smart People make Dumb Choices” by Deborah Smith Pegues and Rick Temple ISBN ISBN 978-0-7369-2852-6
Okay.
YOU: “[…..] You think it is kind and reasonable, but it is not. It is why we can’t fire bad teachers, why incompetent leaders keep getting re-elected, why fraudsters and scam artist keep getting opportunities to pray on the trusting. You are undoubtedly a good and well-intentioned person, but you are refusing to think, and no, I don’t have respect for that. Trying to rationalize this principal’s conduct is also signature significance. I am a former criminal lawyer, by the way, and your discourse on homicide was pointless and irrelevant.”
I understand the point you made here; and I know that it is true when you wrote that criminals prey on the trusting. a thought springs to mind: Are all fraudsters, scam artists, incompetent leaders, bad teachers wholeheartedly getting “chance after chance to harm individuals, organizations, and society.” ???
Usually, when proof surfaces that a teacher is bad “in specific ways” contrary to their contract, policy and procedure, rules and regulations…they are usually “fired” and/or arrested depending upon the the level of proof, etc. I have seen on TV/News a number of “bad teachers,” fired and/or arrested leading to incarceration.
Incompetent leaders keep getting re-elected because mainstream society “is not thinking” on a number of levels ‘voting’ for Incompetence for whatever reason(s) in their mind(s).
Fraudsters and scam artists keep getting opportunities to prey on the trusting because those types have a low to no moral compass and their victims have (in their minds) obviously deficient permeable boundaries in various ways “that is infinitely case by case.”
Finally; You wrote that you are a former criminal lawyer,” and you further wrote: “by the way, and your discourse on homicide was pointless and irrelevant.”
My reply: Okay.
One of the things that is particularly upsetting about this event is that we’re talking about disabled children who either a) become easily emotionally dysregulated (autistic and mentally ill kids tend to fall into this category) or b) are unable to simply run out of the room or easily hide (kids with CP and other disabilities who use wheelchairs tend to fall into this category). This is a situation in which the first set of kids needs a tremendous amount of repeated structure in a safe environment in order to learn necessary skills, and the other set needs the help of aides or adaptive skills training in order to physically navigate. Neither set of kids can learn these things when they’re in a panic, and when the adults around them are literally praying they don’t get shot and calling home to say goodbye forever to loved ones. If the principal of the school doesn’t get that he’s dealing with kids whose needs pretty much preclude learning anything in a panic situation, sound ethics would dictate that he find another job.
Add to the mix the fact that some kids who become dysregulated can act out by yelling, throwing things, and being destructive, and you have a recipe for disaster when the cops show up with their guns drawn, unaware that there is a drill going on. The drill itself would cause that kind of acting-out behavior, and then innocent kids could very well have lost their lives. The principal should consider himself lucky if all that happens is that he loses his job. The situation could have had a far worse outcome.
Thanks for the benefit of your expertise. And isn’t it amazing that a principal at a school entrusted with such children wouldn’t know this???
It’s the ignorance involved, more than the stupidity, that I find so unethical. This would be a stupid thing to do to any set of kids, but it’s an especially ignorant thing to do to kids whose disabilities require the very opposite of what he did. There is no excuse for that kind of ignorance in a professional person responsible for a school for special needs kids. The man really does need to find some other line of work — preferably at home, where he can’t come up with any more bright ideas that traumatize other people.
I’m highly skeptical that a principal of a school like this wouldn’t know these things. These factors are WHY these students are in a special school. This is where, to me, this action crosses over from some mixture of stupid/unethical to needlessly and deliberately cruel.
I can’t go that far. If there was ever an application for Hanlon’s Law, this is it. Not malice. Incompetence.
I don’t see proof of deliberate cruelty here, and I generally try to assume ignorance before I assume malice. That being said, disabled kids *are* willfully abused in schools all the time — sometimes by kids, sometimes by teachers and aides, and sometimes in full view of adults who do nothing — and that’s a reflection of the inordinate amount of psychological and physical violence that disabled people endure in society in general. There is more hatred in society at large for disabled people than most people realize, and a lot of us have had that kind of hatred directed toward us. So the experience of our community brings that possibility to mind, just as an incident involving trauma done by a white man to a black man brings the possibility of racist intent to mind. The racist intent isn’t always there, but it would be wrong to discount the possibility. At the very least, there is a devaluation of the feelings and experience of the students here that should give anyone pause. Whether that devaluation is based on the fact that they’re kids and therefore perceived as having lesser value, or that they’re disabled and therefore perceived as having lesser value — or both — is anyone’s guess.
In any case, I’m not sure it’s necessary to go to intent, because intent isn’t nearly as important as impact. The principal might have had the best of intentions or the worst of intentions, but neither changes the damage done or the fact that this failure should be costing him his job.
I’ve seen incompetence and malice go together.
Whether by malice or stupidity, the unworthiness of this principal is still evident. That she’s been retained in her position in spite of this relegates her supervisors to a status of accessories and, thus, unworthy of their own positions. How can children be taught the vitally necessary virtue of personal responsibility when they see its literal absence among those in authority over them?
I agree. Whoever did this is unfitted to be responsible for children. I just don’t think incompetence and malice are mutually exclusive.
The teachers weren’t prepared for this.
That could be excusable if there have been frequent, prepared-for drills in the past. Running may be a good thing once a high level of proficiency in walking has been achieved.
But there’s no record of such.
This wasn’t a drill though, not in the usual sense. There was no announcement that it was a drill. That is a far, far worse problem.
This can lead to counter-training. The next time such an announcement is made, it is likely to be dismissed (at least by some) as just a drill, with possibly fatal consequences.
This level of misjudgement really has to call into question the perpetrator’s ability to do pretty much anything. It might be a “blind spot” but he should be immediately terminated, then an investigation begun of what’s happened at that school in the past, and if there’s a pattern of such idiocy, how the heck he got to be a principal in the first place, as the system should prevent that.
In other words, “crying wolf”. That’s a valid point as well.
The consequences of doing such a disastrously stupid thing elsewhere could have been truly tragic. He announced a life-threatening situation over the loudspeakers. What would your real plan in such a situation be? I don’t mean the official “lock your door, hide under your desk, and wait for the police to arrive and save you”, plan?
What would have happened had someone been injured in this ‘drill’, because people at the school mistook someone else for a gunman intent on killing everyone in the building (say, a suspicious looking visitor who just happened to be in the hallway)?
Now, if you think I am crazy or that no one would really do that, ask yourself this question. What would happen if the police called random people and told them there was someone trying to break into their house to kill them and their family? What could possibly go wrong? Could a local homeless man distributing ads door to door end up being shot?
The mild traumatization of the teachers and students was the best possible outcome to this action.
Long time, first time…I have nothing to add that hasn’t already been said (the principal’s actions are mind-numbingly stupid & irresponsible, and the refusal to comment on the “drill” is just cowardly). However, it seems as though everyone is proceeding in this conversation with the impression that the principal is a “he”. According to the school’s website, she is a “she”. Semantics, I know….
http://schools.nyc.gov/SchoolPortals/05/M079/EducationalSupport/Administration/default.htm
Thanks, I wondered about that. Greer works both ways. I’ll fix it.
Ethics of hoaxing this may be debatable to some very few folks, but there is no debate about the ethics of threatening teachers who want to expose this or going now one month and counting without letting the parents know or allowing post trauma care for 300 kids just to continue to cover your ass.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXd9kWCHTbc