Like Button

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Rules for the Lazy

I wonder sometimes if people don't make rules simply because they're too lazy to think. Most often we think of rule makers as folks with a power complex. I have to wonder if that's really the case. How many times do you see rules made simply so people don't have to take personal responsibility?

Take, for instance, the recent case where a school banned the game of tag. "Intense aggression" was the charge. Touch football was also banned. You see, kids were getting hurt playing these games. So, instead of analyzing individual children or considering the affect of overprotective school administrators on the development of young children, they banned the game entirely. They said it wasn't your original version, but a more aggressive version where they would pile on someone and make them try to break out. Whatever you do, don't intervene in that. Just ban the game! In other words, "Don't make me think about real issues. Just make an overarching rule so I can have some peace."

Or how about the school last year that instituted a "no-touching rule" where students could be disciplined for holding hands or high-fiving. The problem, the administrators said, was that sometimes touching became inappropriate or led to fighting. The remedy? Ban touching. Problem solved. Administrators don't have to consider the term "inappropriate." And if the kids don't get the opportunity to learn what appropriate touching might be, whose problem is that? Certainly not the school's.

Our world is thick with this concept. Is there a problem? Let's make a great big rule so it can't happen again. Let's make a "zero tolerance" rule so we don't have to think about individual cases. Let's make a rule that affects everyone so that even if some individuals don't really need them, we don't have to think about it. Let's make a rule for everyone in the company so that when my subordinate breaks the rule, I don't have to answer for it.

But let's not blame schools or administrators or society. You'll get this in your own homes. A father will tell his daughter, "You're not going out dressed like that." The daughter will appeal to her mother. "Mom! It's not fair." What does Mom do? As often as not, what you'll hear is "Do what your father said." You see, here it's "You and me, kid. We're stuck. Your father made the rule. We have to live with it. Tough, isn't it?" It's not too often that you'll hear, "You know that what you're wearing isn't appropriate. Go up and change." No, let Dad be the bad guy and Mom be the sympathetic ear. That's the same concept. Dad has made a rule and Mom is going to use it to her advantage. (Please, folks, if the situation is reversed -- and it often is -- take the point to heart, not the illustration.)

Doing what is right is often hard work. It takes time. It takes attention. We've bought this notion that "everyone should be treated the same" while we're also convinced that no two people are the same. We think that all things must be equitable meaning, to us, equal. For instance, if I spend $20 on a gift for a 10-year-old for his birthday, then the 5-year-old had better get a $20 gift for hers as well. (I actually know parents who tally up the amount spent at Christmas and verify that each kid gets the same amount.) Or maybe it's not equality. Maybe it's love. Love demands time and attention as well. Teaching a kid to do their homework is a lot more work than doing it for them. Helping a child learn to handle tough situations by staying out of the way when necessary is a lot harder than stepping in and fixing things. We want to make rules ("Each kid should receive the same amount" or "Make life easy for my kids" or ...) so that we don't have to think and we don't have to work at it. Is it any wonder that schools have banned tag, instituted "no-touching rules", or generated nonsensical "zero tolerance" conditions? Are we really surprised that society makes broad, sweeping rules when they don't need to so they don't have to consider the individual? Doing the right thing is hard work. Maybe we ought to consider doing hard work.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think the real intent of rules such as these is nothing more than wiggle room. I mean, seriously, how many people consider high-fives a dangerous tendency. It is our nature to step just beyond the limits of the rules. Speed limit is 65, drive 70. Rather than pushing the boundaries little by little outwards, expanding to allow the "innocent" misdeamonors of the masses, some have chosen to institute these ridiculous rules that no right-minded individual would classify as a good idea. The point is not to fully enforce nonsense, but to eliminate the excuses of the trespassers. That said, the institution of such rules is destined to lead to trouble because it fails to address real issues.

The Schaubing Blogk said...

Ummm.

I don't quite get it. First of all, I can't get around that you said,
"But let's not blame schools or administrators or society."

Please, lets blame them. When they do something wrong (or, in the case of schools, *are* something wrong) then by all means blame them.

But the larger point. Surely it isn't rules *per se* that are wrong. After all, 'thou shalt not kill' is a rule. Surely it is the 'poor' rule, or the rule poorly applied which is wrong.

No one wants to live in a world ruled by individual applications of rules. When I see the speed limit 70 mph sign I know that (barring changes in weather or road conditions) I won't get pulled over for going 69. How awful it would be if I had to worry about each cops idea of what 'safe' was.

Some cops would decide that my big white van shouldn't be doing over 55, since I have all my kids in it. He pulls me over, and when I argue, says he is treating me 'as an individual case'.

Horrors.

Stan said...

No, you don't quite get it, von.

I am not saying that there is no fault in the schools or the administration. Perhaps a "just" would have been better in that sentence? That being said, the problem starts first and foremost in the home. Nor am I advocating "no rules". How you could conclude that would be beyond me.

Perhaps I live in a different world than you do. I've seen too many rules in too many places that were not put in place for the general welfare, but to avoid specific and rare occurrences. They use rules so they don't have to deal with individuals. Not all rules and not all rule makers.

The title, "Rules for the Lazy", explains that some rules are instituted by some lazy people. Not all rules. Not all rule makers.