Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
No. But it's realistic. I understand that this seems smug when compared to more idealistic ambitions of those who think regulations and prohibitions can cure all. But the word that really fits is "pragmatic." There is only so much that can be done to stop humans from acting shitty toward one another. Barring them from engaging in physical violence upon one another is realistic. Barring them from saying horrible things about one another, or expanding laws to make general (non-employment related) verbal and psychological abuse illegal, are things we cannot do. If those things become illegal, you'll know society has completely collapsed. It'll be a recognition we can't self police anything... And that we're being governed by the most clueless of Utopians.
|
Why should the school setting, where kids are compelled to be present 5 days a week, be considered less significant and less subject to "laws to make general verbal and psychological abuse illegal", than the employment setting?
I understand Atticus' frustration that schools get blamed and get held liable where there was nothing you could do. But that calls for some limitations on liability, not for a do-nothing, kids-will-be-kids attitude.
Hell, many people were similarly frustrated that a major corporation or law firm could be held liable because an officer, partner, or even a low-level employee engaged in boys-will-be-boys activity (that was retermed, and correctly termed, sexual harassment).
