We can all recall a time when the sins of a few were visited upon everybody else.
One such incident happened when I was an undergraduate at Highlands, enrolled in a history course. In the fashion of Delta House members in the movie “Animal House,� some students fished through a wastebasket outside one of the buildings and located the mimeographs of the final exam.
Gross! In pre-Xerox days, those sticky, ill-smelling, inky sheets of thin plastic were the stencils used in preparing the examination. Apparently the secretary who typed the exam discarded the stencils, not realizing that the search would be on later that night. The three culprits got caught black-handed, but rather than dealing with them directly and individually, the instructor decided to make the announcement, without naming the louses, that “Because certain members of your class cheated, all of you will suffer the consequences and will be required to take both a multiple-choice exam as well as a written final.�
That didn’t go over very well with the 75 students in the class who didn’t attempt to cheat. But in those days, the prof’s word was law, and a number of us suffered consequences wrought by the three students. Although some students performed well anyway, they thought the action punitive and objected on principle.
But fair or not, isn’t that the way things go in life? Rather than dealing with the one trouble-maker, those in charge opt to punish the entire group.
The one-size-fits-all practice came to mind when I read an article in Wednesday’s paper about an eighth-grade girl from a small town in Illinois who got punished. The lead paragraph reads: “Two hugs equals two days of detention for 13-year-old. …â€?
The article explains that she was punished for violating a school policy that bans public displays of affection. The two hugs given to two best friends earned her extra hours after school. Accordingly, she spent time in detention two days for, as she explained “just giving them a hug goodbye for the weekend.�
One of the livelier discussions in a course I taught this year at Luna Community College involved a unit on sexual harassment. Now I’m among the first to want to punish the various low-lifes, predators and bullies among us, but I also believe some things have gone too far.
A female student, who’s a teacher aide in an area school, demonstrated the kind of hug her school allows. “I’ll demonstrate it on you,� she told me. Not knowing what to expect, I waited as she stood next to me — both of us facing the same direction — put an arm around my neck, pulled my far shoulder toward her and gave a little squeeze. That was all.
Well, that seemed entirely innocuous. The student explained that the hug most people give is face to face, both arms wrapped around the other person. Asked her opinion of why the hug has changed, the student explained that apparently face-to-face hugs can get too intimate.
The both-facing-forward-type hug is little more than a handshake, but even a handshake presents dangers, at least in regard to spreading germs. But that’s a topic for a future column. So what’s the solution? Everybody gets encased in a plastic bubble?
A few years ago, a Highlands official conducted a workshop on sexual harassment and hostile workplaces. Those attending the required workshop must have learned what a difference a generation makes.
Whereas in the past it was standard procedure — even expected — for teachers to welcome their students back in the fall with a big hug, today, anything more than a limp handshake may cause some adults to face sexual harassment charges. Or to fear them.
The presenter at Highlands mentioned that it’s best to avoid all physical contact with students, in public schools. “For many of the students,� the lecturer said, “about the only time anybody ever touches them is to punish them or abuse them sexually.�
If what the presenter said is true, one wonders what happened in society to make virtually everyone a potential victim or abuser.
The number of cases in which teachers abscond with their elementary or junior high school student is something we seldom used to hear of. Now it’s b
ecoming common . . . unless, however, such elopements weren’t regularly reported in the past.
The generalized punishment applies to many many other aspects of life as well. Notice how one sloppy dresser at work causes there to be a strictly enforced dress code. Or a habitually tardy employee creates the need for all others to sign in or to punch a time clock.
The 13-year-old obviously has learned her lesson, no matter how specious, banal and reactionary it may be. What used to be commended and admired as a sign of caring, affection and altruism has now become construed as a punishable offense.
And did you ever notice that much of school punishment requires that the student spend extra time after school, imprisoned? That’s destined to make the culprit resent school even more.
It’s the kind of reasoning school personnel apply when they send disruptive kids to the library, or — even more galling — require them to write a research paper, as if writing were a punishment.
So what’s next? For years I’ve signed off many e-mails with “I’m sending you un abrazo.� I like to send electronic hugs to my friends. But I suppose even that’ll soon have to stop.