by Simon
•Simon is a young Bahamian with things on his mind who wishes to remain anonymous. His column 'Front Porch' is published every Tuesday in the Nassau Guardian. He can be reached at frontporchguardian@gmail.com
The moral grandstanding turned media crush turned political football engulfing an alleged sexual incident involving two high school students is more of a moral kaleidoscope than many initially realized.
On cue, some moralizing jockeys, with blinders on, rode their high horses towards predetermined moralistic or political conclusions which tended to obscure broader ethical issues at stake.
The greater morality tale in this matter has more to do with the alternatively irresponsible, sensationalistic, intemperate, poorly reasoned and, at times, vicious actions and mindsets of many in our supposedly adult community.
While there are issues of personal ethics, regarding the young people allegedly involved, there are also ethical questions as to how the school, the media, politicians and others understood and handled this case.
In our highly fundamentalist culture, ethical choices are often spun as decisions between right and wrong. Such a notion is often right. It is also sometimes wrong. Life tends to be more complex than black and white or red and yellow.
Sometimes we have to choose between two or more good choices -- sometimes between competing bad choices. We have to weigh options and decide on the best course of action. Weighing options requires facts.
It is extraordinary how many, suffering from a factual deficit on this matter, had a surplus of uninformed opinions. While some media continue to get basic facts wrong, others, with more suspect motives, let facts be damned.
Those who view this matter as representative of broader moral issues have a critical but not an absolute point. As critically, ethics must marry universal principles and specific applications.
While this occasion must bear in mind broader societal issues, it should not be made to bear the full moral weight of these issues. An overly-sexualized Bahamian society will not become more chastened after parading scores of high school students before the courts.
Bahamians are troubled about the severity of crime, anti-social behaviour and corruption within society. But to say that the school’s handling of this matter is a dramatic example of moral decline is simply wrong.
Such views say more about the intensity of moral panic in a society that, while vexed about diminishing moral standards, often fails to take deep breaths and adopt more creative responses regarding adolescent sexuality and behaviour.
As adults, we can uphold the principle that the alleged actions of these young people were unacceptable, while finding morally prudent and reasonable means to reprove and transform their behaviour.
Political favouritism, a practice we should reject, enables some to receive special treatment because of who they are related to or know. But the premise underlying this principle suggests another: you should not be discriminated against because of who you are related to or know.
Unfortunately, the adolescents allegedly involved in this matter are pawns. Many adults are less concerned about the best interests of these teens and more interested in the adult targets to whom they are related.
If their alleged actions were ignored by the school, that would be gross favouritism. But for these alleged actions to become a cause celebre is an act of gross discrimination – and unfairness.
Particularly galling and hypocritical are those masking their political calculations in moral and religious terms. Such pharisaical posturing is essentially bad politics and compromised spirituality.
Alternatively, there are many people of goodwill wrestling with other courses of action regarding this case. Actions should have consequences.
The young people involved should feel the consequences of their actions. I am not privy to the nature of the consequences imposed by the school. They should not be perfunctory or lame. Nor should they have the effect of grievously harming the lives and futures of these young people.
Rather, the consequences should exemplify the discipline, compassion and standards the school seeks to cultivate in its students.
The moral goal is correction, restoration and offering a cautionary lesson to other students; not vengeance, spite and a school culture that automatically responds to certain infractions by reaching for the penal code.
It no longer surprises that many of those casting their stones would argue for lesser purity tests or punishments for them and their children than they are prescribing in this instance.
Many delight in preaching moral consistency when it comes to others, while practising moral hypocrisy when it comes to their families. Here’s a hard and fast golden rule many often find inconvenient: have done unto others what you would like have done unto yourself -- and your children.
The fact that scores of students are engaging in various forms of sexual behaviour, often with disastrous consequences, should not be cavalierly dismissed. “Everyone’s doing it,” is neither true nor an acceptable standard.
And, just to gainsay some of the snobbery and arrogance surfaced by this case, we should all be a little humbler when pontificating on the quality of the kids coming out of so-called “bad’ or “good” homes.
So, how do we handle cases of sexual relations between high school students? We should neither ignore, nor rush to criminalize such conduct.
Legally and ethically there is always a variety of cases having regard to different ages, consent, the nature of the conduct and so on.
There are grievous examples of student behaviour which should be reported to the police. But not every fight -- or every instant of theft, or every example of sexual misconduct -- should be so reported.
There were other more constructive and measured responses to the alleged impropriety by the young people in this case. One of them was the restraint, maturity and firmness of the school officials who did not bend to pressure regarding what they believed was the right thing to do.
Rather than an act of convenience and cowardice, what they demonstrated, was courage and charity.
Just as we should be diverting many youthful offenders from the adult criminal justice system, we should generally be highly reticent about introducing less serious matters into the judicial system.
None of this should be based on economic standing, family connections, schools attended and such. It should be based on the nature of the offence.
If we can dismount our galloping moral high horses for a bit, we might be able more soberly to ponder the broader consequences of the more punitive and criminal penalties some are suggesting.
With limited judges and court rooms, police and crime-fighting tools, and prison facilities, we may want to spend more of our time, imagination and resources tackling the mounting numbers of alleged serious offenders out on bail.
Likewise, we might further explore issues like electronic bracelets for some on bail and more innovative school-based character and community service programmes, which may deter irresponsible sexuality. Alas, these topics are less sensational and salacious.
Unfortunately, our overreaction to this episode speaks volumes about the moral conduct of far too many adults. Along with these young people, we may need some moral clarification and time-out.
Long winded article that comes to no conclusions. Typical of Bahamian bloggers. The fact is - the school should have permanently expelled the older of the two children and suspended the younger one. And corrupt political favouritism is the reason they didn't.
Posted by: Fellow Blogger | June 09, 2008 at 06:18 PM