September 28th, 2011

We looked at a case study in class today entitled "Commitments".  In this situation, there was a young man named Shawn who tended to burst out inappropriately in class.  I feel that in this situation the teacher acted inappropriately and with astounding inconsistency.  She came to the class and asked them for advice on how to deal with Shawn's problem, as she called it.  Students yelled out inappropriate things, such as "Shawn's a pain in the butt", and she said and did nothing.  In fact, she agreed with some of them.  In doing this, she is stating to the students that she is on their side against Shawn, which she later displays quite obviously.  After gathering a few more opinions from the other students, the teacher decides that the next day in class she will give each student an assignment.  Their task is to select three personal goals to improve, and then the class would discuss each others goals.  She asked if someone would speak up when it came time for Shawn to read out his goals.  HORRIBLE IDEA!  Shawn doesn't respond well to the suggestions of the other students.  She is setting him up to fail.

The next day, she hands out the assignments and explains it the the class.  Shawn was confused at her explanation, so she walked up to him and said, "one of your commitments could be to try to control yourself from making inappropriate remarks to other students or refrain from poking or kicking them."  I'm not sure that she could have handled that situation any worse.  A personal conference would have worked infinitely better.  Shawn wouldn't feel embarrassed, and she could possibly listen to him and understand him.  When it was his turn to share his commitments to the class, he stood up and read them aloud.  His second promise was to "try to control [his] mouth".  Then a student made a snide remark.  Shawn blurted out, as I would've expected, and then quickly puts his hand over his mouth.  The teachers reaction towards the student who made the rude remark: NOTHING!  The teacher is placing every scrap of blame on this troubled young man.  I don't believe that there is such a thing as a conflict with only one party that is to blame.  Both sides inevitably do something wrong, and that needs to be recognized in order for resolution to be possible.  I have been in many an altercation where I was told that the fault was all mine, and these sorts of conversations NEVER go well.  This teacher should have suggested to the other students a goal: "I won't push Shawn's buttons".  These students aren't innocent, and they also need to change to make peace in the classroom.

I will list the inconsistencies of this teacher below:

• When Shawn would burst out, she would discipline him.  When other students would burst out, she would do nothing.
• She suggested ideas to Shawn for his assignment, and didn't for the other students.
• When Shawn reacted poorly to the taunting and teasing of the students, she would punish him.  She wouldn't punish the students that were doing the taunting, which I think is completely illogical.  To illustrate my point, I will use an analogy.  Let's say there is a bear that a person is standing near.  When this person grabs a stick and pokes the bear, they know what will happen.  This person is viciously attacked by the bear.  Who is at fault in this situation?  The person knew very well what the consequences of their actions would be, and still made that decision.  The bear simply reacted, and in a perfectly natural way. (Correct answer: you should punish the idiot person).

Later that class, we watched an informative video by William Ury.  It was about negotiation, and unfortunately, I found a great deal of what he said to be true.  I say unfortunately, because I have been in many tough conversations with a particular group of people, over the past two years.  Each gathering with this group would end horribly, with myself and my husband finding ourselves at the center of a shit hurricane.  There is one person in this group who is completely blameless in every area of her life.  When we do something she doesn't approve of, we are labelled as betrayers, and the rest of this group blindly supports her.  Things happen, she tells her side of the story to them, and that's all they need!  They don't care about our side of what happened, and they don't want to hear about it.  They just want us to apologize, take complete responsibility for what's happened, and then pretend like everything is fine.  We have had many conversations with this entire group, because that is the only way that they'll bring anything up.  This person doesn't like to talk to anyone she is upset with.  She waits until she is surrounded by supportive people, and then they all strike at once.  It's just lovely...  When I was watching this movie, I was reminded of this situation.  Ury says that there are usually two ways that conversations in negotiations go.  The opposing parties can face each other and argue, or they can stand beside one another, and look to a common goal.  When they face each other and argue, little is accomplished.  This arguing is usually done with an emotional base, and things get out of hand rapidly.  These are the types of arguments that we have with this group.  The other type of conversation happens when the two parties focus their attention on a common goal, not on the opposing party.  Ury calls this 'going to the balcony'.  The parties take a step back from their emotions, and try and see things from a different perspective.  This type of conversation is logical, and through such conversations, much can be accomplished.  I have yet to see a conversation like this with that group.  I'd like to sit that entire group down and make them watch this video.