Risk and Reward

First, in the otherwise fine article “Safety from the Inside Out,” Alfie Kohn slips when he mentions feeling “safe to take [intellectual] risks.” Obviously, it was just a slip, but all the same, educators have been known to get carried away with basically good ideas (we’ll give a few examples below, none of which occurred in the authors’ current schools). Thus, we want to make an important distinction: if it’s safe, it isn’t a risk . . . and therefore it’s probably not worth doing. In another article, “Safety and Excellence,” John Merrow quotes a similar overstatement by Lisa Delpit: “People cannot learn under stress.” That, of course, is simply not so, as the U.S. Marine Corps proves every twelve weeks. The old Intro to Psych distinction between eustress and distress is important.

Judgment and Mercy

In “Safety and Excellence,” John Merrow might be too uncompromising with his apparent endorsement of zero tolerance for certain student conversations. As with physical safety, there are no workable safeguards for absolute “emotional safety.” Suspending a kid because of a joke can be just as silly as suspending a kid for waving a cocktail sword around. For example, some time ago Daniel and one of his friends, both of whom are racial minorities, were exchanging a popular black comedian’s lines about stereotyping. None of what they were saying was directed toward anyone, nor were they in any way disruptive, but it included a politically incorrect term. A teacher overheard it, and she “went off” on them.

It could have been worse. According to the “always intervene” policy that Merrow and Deborah Meier seem to suggest when they discuss emotional safety, Daniel and his buddy could have been suspended. We think Merrow and Meier’s more liberal attitude toward intellectual safety is closer to the mark. Here Lisa Delpit’s comments in the John Merrow article are right when she advocates helping a student express and work through anger. Overzealous attempts to make a school emotionally safe may prove just as excessive as zero tolerance policies for physical violence. Adult judgment is required if adults are going to help children become adults.

Likewise, schoolteachers who try to make their students more accepting of other people, as urged by Ted Sizer in Merrow’s article, might occasionally find their efforts counterproductive. We are not saying that it’s a bad idea to help students get over their differences. What we are saying is that it’s futile for schools to try to keep cliques from forming, and thoughtless attempts at “positive socialization” probably won’t work. Making kids who don’t like each other try to get along can make them dislike each other even more. If the teacher does not know the whole story behind why certain kids or groups don’t get along, enforced association may be unwise.

Gunzelmann, Merrow, and others sensibly urge caution with kids who get emotional. But as they also suggest, an emotional response to an undesirable situation does not automatically mean that a kid is a threat. Some time ago one of Daniel’s classmates commented to the whole class about a grade Daniel had received. It was by no means the first time he had cracked on Daniel, and Daniel replied with an off-color remark that the teacher overheard. Soon she and Daniel were engaged in a yelling match, which resulted in a chat with the assistant dean of students. Happily, that gentleman, who knew both Daniel and his persecutor(s), took effective action instead of relying on a rule-book copout.

Of course Daniel was wrong when he used that language. But the administrator wisely saw him as a normal kid rather than as a threat. A zero tolerance policy could have left him in a lot more trouble, just as a psychologically correct teacher might have watch-listed him as an “angry child,” or worse. The elder Carpenter witnessed an extreme example a few years ago when a perfectly decent kid took a dare on the school bus and “mooned” a following car—which unfortunately turned out to be an unmarked police car. Instead of getting a sensible slap on the wrist (or wherever), the kid was convicted of “indecent exposure.” What was actually just an idiotic prank thus left a teenager with a criminal record that branded him as a pervert.

All that being said, we agree with Merrow that the teachers probably should have been more interventionist at Columbine High School. The point is, neither recklessly conservative zero tolerance nor puritanically liberal do-gooding is ever satisfactory. Awareness, intelligence, and mature discernment are also required.