I don’t completely agree with all that NY Times columnist David Leonhardt says in his column
“A plea for a fact-based debate about charter schools” (July 23,
2018), but his comment about the restrictive rules that led to a protest at the
G.W. Carver charter school in New Orleans resonated with me:
“But the students were
right. The rules were extreme. Students walking between classes had to stay on
the right side of the hallway, for example.”
I remember that rule, and many others, from my own education
in the New York City public schools a long time ago. That particular rule
didn’t kick in until junior high school (7th-9th grade,
since replaced by “middle school”), because in elementary school we didn’t
really walk the halls; all of our classes except gym were in the same room.
Students walking to different rooms for different teachers for different
subjects (called “departmental”) began in 7th grade, but elementary
school had its own set of restrictive rules that Leonhardt and most students
today might find extreme. We didn’t have to wear uniforms, but the boys had to wear
ties. In elementary school! This was ridiculous, not only on the “restrictive”
level, but because little boys don’t always stay, um, neat, especially when
eating or running around. Some of the most popular authorized types of ties were
the pre-tied kind that just clipped under the collar, or the late unlamented
but valuable-at-the-time “cross-continental”, kind of a bow that just snapped
under the collar. And, yes, we had to wear shirts with collars! Luckily, at
some point schools came to their senses and by the time I was a parent the
totally appropriate attire for elementary school students was jeans and t-shirts.
You want to guess who looks neater at the end of the day, a kid in jeans and a
t-shirt or a kid with a stained askew tie over a dirty shirt with the tails
hanging out?
Actually, the rules on ties got better as we aged; in junior
high we were freed from that rule in the month of June. (And yes, we went to
school in June, unlike a lot of the country our school year was Labor Day to
June 30. Always June 30.) In high school, we didn’t have to wear ties at all.
But the most interesting (??) rule in elementary school was that on Thursday, “Assembly
Day” where the school got together to pledge allegiance to the flag and have
some kid read a psalm (apparently Psalms were ok because they were Old
Testament and thus kosher for Jews and Christians; no one even thought about
other religions, or, God forbid, atheism!), and maybe other stuff happened but
I don’t remember it, we had to wear a white shirt, blue pants, and a red tie!
True. Literally true. Not in a Christian fundamentalist private school in the
South run by the DAR, but in New York City public schools! I wonder if there
were any clean white shirts by the
end of the day?
So, maybe you can tell I thought those rules were not only “restrictive”,
but on a graph of good-bad vs wise-stupid, definitely down at the bad and
stupid end. However, I am absolutely certain that there are people who do not
think so (now that they are no longer those students), who, reading the
Leonhardt column think “Yeah! We had to walk down the hall on the right side!
We had a lot of dress codes and behavior rules and other things, and look at me
now! That kind of structure and discipline is what made me into the fine person
I am today!” ((I was going to say “man” but don’t so as not to seem
insensitive, and there are probably women who feel that way, but in my
experience I almost always hear that rant from men.) Even if that fine person
is an out-of-shape, bigoted, opioid-addicted and generally unpleasant specimen.
(OK, I’m stereotyping again, maybe they are bank presidents or FBI men or even
teachers.)
This suggests something to me about growing up, power, and
possibly something about the political divide in our country (and, in some
sense, the world) between those who relish authoritarianism and nationalism and
those who believe in openness, freedom of expression, and plurality. Many of us
grew up with such rules, structure, restriction, and impingement upon our
freedom to act as we saw fit. Not coincidentally, these behavioral restrictions
coexisted with restrictions – at least efforts to restrict -- our freedom to
think. (True story: in high school, in the mid-60s, a group of us in the
History Club planned a “teach-in” on the war in Vietnam. The chairman of the
History Department heard about it and burst into a class many of us were
taking, Economics I think, and railed at us, calling us “Munich appeasers”.)
But not all of us reacted to it in the same way.
For some people, as I have noted, these “rules” seem to (in
retrospect, at least) have been important in forming them into the “good people”
they see themselves as. For others, it was resistance to such rules and
thought-policing that led them (OK, us) to become the “good people” they see
themselves as today. Put another way, while almost all of us looked forward to “growing
up”, becoming adults and not being subject to these rules, and even be able to
make the rules, we responded in different ways. One was to think “we will not
have such stupid rules” governing children and the world; we will have greater
freedom of ideas and expression and behavior. Another was to think “I can’t
wait to be a grownup and make rules that benefit me and mine, and oppress
others”. I don’t know if they think about it that way, but it is the way many
behave. See, for example, the right-wing nationalist movements in Europe and
Israel and other parts of the world, as well as in the US.
There are many examples of people, as individuals or groups,
responding to their own oppression by oppressing others. We know that people abused,
physically or sexually, as children often become abusers of their own or others’
children. The Puritans, unable to freely practice their religion in England
went to Holland and then left because it had religious freedom not only for them
but for everyone, and came to the America to establish theocracy in
Massachusetts. We have seen the descendants of the victims of the Holocaust
create both de facto and now de jure restrictions on Palestinians in
Israel (Max Fisher in the Times quotes
“Ben-Gurion [who] insisted that Israel
give up the territories it had conquered. If it did not, he said, occupation
would distort the young state, which had been founded to protect not just the
Jewish people but their ideals of democracy and pluralism.’
Of course, there are extremes. I am not saying that there
should be no rules for children or even discipline. But I am also saying, very
strongly, that having been oppressed, as an individual or as a people, is a good
reason to empathize, fight for the rights of others, and not to look for ways
to oppress someone else.
The world could do with a lot few authoritarian strongmen,
and a lot fewer of their fans.