Outstanding post! I received a traditional Catholic education in the 50's-60's-70's when my teachers were habited nuns and cassocked brothers. They demanded excellence and taught me that my actions have consequences. Those are lessons that just aren't being taught today.
Thank you for your response, John. I seldom, as in never before, have written rants on the internet, but this article and the responses to it really rankled. Your response indicates that, as usual, I could have done more editing.
The "class" rhetorical question wasn't about the numbers, but rather about the concept, and I'm assuming that it was actually his choice. If it was imposed on him by some other authority then this whole discussion is moot.
I do regard it harshly. Lazy, arbitrary and unfair, even. "Lazy" might be a needless stretch, since surely Father Tribou was a busy man, but "arbitrary and unfair" both fit: he chose to evaluate students based on their group membership - something beyond their control - rather than as individuals. That's the "original sin" that he introduced into the situation, and it poisoned everything that followed.
As one instance, it indicated or suggested to the seniors that their response should be couched in terms of "class" as well, instead of individuals, i.e., some argument about why the senior class is "better" than the junior class.
My original comment was an exploration of how Father Tribou's very worthwhile observation - that a student's practical support for the team is a moral, and arguably the best, "analytical" criterion for his getting a ticket - might have have been put into practice instead. But on re-reading the essay, I see that time was shorter that I had realized and that my suggestions were likely not practical under the circumstances. So what was the time constraint, and did it allow for a better way of apportioning the tickets?
Using my fecund imagination, I'll call the day that Father Tribou made his announcement "Day 1." By my reading, the game was on the afternoon of Day 4. And the answer is yes, there certainly was a better way.
A simple and moral solution would have been a lottery. The school could have started accepting entries in the office immediately (names being crossed off a school roster), accepted through beginning of lunch on Day 2, and posted by end of lunch on Day 2. No muss, no fuss, no complaints except for "Rats, bad luck."
Instead, he wound up with an adolescent senior class who - along with the sophomores and freshmen - actually were treated unjustly, who responded like adolescents will (fancy that!), and who were punished as they deserved. That outcome was unfortunate but quite predictable, and Father Tribou should have foreseen and averted it. I can hardly imagine that he actively sought it.
To those commenters in the silver linings, lessons learned camp, I reply with "Well... yes. And I hope that Father Tribou was among those who learned some."
To those in the 'bout time those kids learned their lesson camp, I reply with "Well, yes again. But I see nothing to celebrate about their having learned it because of their priest's lack of forethought and apparent lack of humility regarding his own failings in the matter. The punishment Father Tibou meted out was justified, but I believe that Father Tibou played a significant role in its being necessary at all."
Hello again, Philip. I respectfully suggest that you are focusing on a collateral issue. The intended thrust of my Father Tribou story was his strong and decisive action when faced with potential student disobedience/rebellion. His manner of selecting the attendees was collateral to that central issue. Think about it: Even if his proposal and been one that you like, if the students who disagreed with it reacted the same way, his response would have been the same. So, how he chose the attendees is just background and otherwise irrelevant to my central point. With that explanation, I hope that you will reconsider your rancor at my article. If not, well, I have enough experience with people who disagree with me, that it doesn't bother me. After all, life would be pretty dull if everyone agreed with us all the time. I always welcome intelligent push-back, such as yours.
Kindest regards and thanks again for your comments.
Nah, lazily arbitrary and unfair... starting with the proposition that "only one class could attend." Why? Too much trouble to be more selective?
One could start by asking the individuals who are even interested in going to the game (and would even be able to go) to identify themselves. In such an upright school, very few would have the gall to step forward just because they want to skip a couple of classes. A sign-up sheet passed around one time at the beginning of each last-period class would accomplish this part.
Second, how many student tickets are available? That, with the number in the group above, quantifies the problem.
Then let the team members, assisted by the coaches, decide who among those who want a ticket gets one. Taken as a group, they know best who's been in the stands or supported the team in other ways. They can also take into account, to the extent that they think equitable, that Seniors have supported the team for 4 years, Juniors 3, etc. Likewise with the fact that Seniors, for valid reasons, tend to have more on their plate.
A HS team playing in a state tournament is a wholesome cause for students to celebrate. Father Tribou hijacked their celebration, either out of laziness or to make a hackneyed "life's not fair" point. I don't doubt that he was a fine man and more, but this whole mess was a bolded black mark from his own pen.
G' morning, Philip. To answer your question of why only one class could attend, my admittedly vague recollection is that it had to do with the number that the school could excuse from class to comply with state law governing accreditation regarding the number of days of school that were required to maintain state accreditation.
As to the other ways of selecting attendees, I think that there are a number of reasonable ways that one could decide who could attend and who could not, including those that you suggest as alternatives. A reasonable person might disagree with any of these, including your or my favorite choice, but I am not prepared to label any of them as lazy, arbitrary or unfair just because I personally would choose another option.
But, notwithstanding our mild disagreement -- in fact, because of your different opinion-- I thank you for taking the time to comment.
Outstanding post! I received a traditional Catholic education in the 50's-60's-70's when my teachers were habited nuns and cassocked brothers. They demanded excellence and taught me that my actions have consequences. Those are lessons that just aren't being taught today.
Exactly and thanks for taking the time to comment!
I could not agree more. This is probably the best essay I have ever read addressing the norms and cultures of any society.
Thanks Phil!
Thank you for your response, John. I seldom, as in never before, have written rants on the internet, but this article and the responses to it really rankled. Your response indicates that, as usual, I could have done more editing.
The "class" rhetorical question wasn't about the numbers, but rather about the concept, and I'm assuming that it was actually his choice. If it was imposed on him by some other authority then this whole discussion is moot.
I do regard it harshly. Lazy, arbitrary and unfair, even. "Lazy" might be a needless stretch, since surely Father Tribou was a busy man, but "arbitrary and unfair" both fit: he chose to evaluate students based on their group membership - something beyond their control - rather than as individuals. That's the "original sin" that he introduced into the situation, and it poisoned everything that followed.
As one instance, it indicated or suggested to the seniors that their response should be couched in terms of "class" as well, instead of individuals, i.e., some argument about why the senior class is "better" than the junior class.
My original comment was an exploration of how Father Tribou's very worthwhile observation - that a student's practical support for the team is a moral, and arguably the best, "analytical" criterion for his getting a ticket - might have have been put into practice instead. But on re-reading the essay, I see that time was shorter that I had realized and that my suggestions were likely not practical under the circumstances. So what was the time constraint, and did it allow for a better way of apportioning the tickets?
Using my fecund imagination, I'll call the day that Father Tribou made his announcement "Day 1." By my reading, the game was on the afternoon of Day 4. And the answer is yes, there certainly was a better way.
A simple and moral solution would have been a lottery. The school could have started accepting entries in the office immediately (names being crossed off a school roster), accepted through beginning of lunch on Day 2, and posted by end of lunch on Day 2. No muss, no fuss, no complaints except for "Rats, bad luck."
Instead, he wound up with an adolescent senior class who - along with the sophomores and freshmen - actually were treated unjustly, who responded like adolescents will (fancy that!), and who were punished as they deserved. That outcome was unfortunate but quite predictable, and Father Tribou should have foreseen and averted it. I can hardly imagine that he actively sought it.
To those commenters in the silver linings, lessons learned camp, I reply with "Well... yes. And I hope that Father Tribou was among those who learned some."
To those in the 'bout time those kids learned their lesson camp, I reply with "Well, yes again. But I see nothing to celebrate about their having learned it because of their priest's lack of forethought and apparent lack of humility regarding his own failings in the matter. The punishment Father Tibou meted out was justified, but I believe that Father Tibou played a significant role in its being necessary at all."
Hello again, Philip. I respectfully suggest that you are focusing on a collateral issue. The intended thrust of my Father Tribou story was his strong and decisive action when faced with potential student disobedience/rebellion. His manner of selecting the attendees was collateral to that central issue. Think about it: Even if his proposal and been one that you like, if the students who disagreed with it reacted the same way, his response would have been the same. So, how he chose the attendees is just background and otherwise irrelevant to my central point. With that explanation, I hope that you will reconsider your rancor at my article. If not, well, I have enough experience with people who disagree with me, that it doesn't bother me. After all, life would be pretty dull if everyone agreed with us all the time. I always welcome intelligent push-back, such as yours.
Kindest regards and thanks again for your comments.
John
Nah, lazily arbitrary and unfair... starting with the proposition that "only one class could attend." Why? Too much trouble to be more selective?
One could start by asking the individuals who are even interested in going to the game (and would even be able to go) to identify themselves. In such an upright school, very few would have the gall to step forward just because they want to skip a couple of classes. A sign-up sheet passed around one time at the beginning of each last-period class would accomplish this part.
Second, how many student tickets are available? That, with the number in the group above, quantifies the problem.
Then let the team members, assisted by the coaches, decide who among those who want a ticket gets one. Taken as a group, they know best who's been in the stands or supported the team in other ways. They can also take into account, to the extent that they think equitable, that Seniors have supported the team for 4 years, Juniors 3, etc. Likewise with the fact that Seniors, for valid reasons, tend to have more on their plate.
A HS team playing in a state tournament is a wholesome cause for students to celebrate. Father Tribou hijacked their celebration, either out of laziness or to make a hackneyed "life's not fair" point. I don't doubt that he was a fine man and more, but this whole mess was a bolded black mark from his own pen.
G' morning, Philip. To answer your question of why only one class could attend, my admittedly vague recollection is that it had to do with the number that the school could excuse from class to comply with state law governing accreditation regarding the number of days of school that were required to maintain state accreditation.
As to the other ways of selecting attendees, I think that there are a number of reasonable ways that one could decide who could attend and who could not, including those that you suggest as alternatives. A reasonable person might disagree with any of these, including your or my favorite choice, but I am not prepared to label any of them as lazy, arbitrary or unfair just because I personally would choose another option.
But, notwithstanding our mild disagreement -- in fact, because of your different opinion-- I thank you for taking the time to comment.