Not My Brother's Keeper
I have been sitting on a news story for a while now, that I had all but decided not to get all worked up about...then I had a good think about it this morning and decided that something needs to be said. The story is from The Local (Swedish edition) and some of the comments on it initally sounded rational...until I checked out the newer comments this morning. Some of the comments sounded very 1984-ish to me - suggesting that people who have tattoos are somehow bad, while people who wear suits and ties are all good. Obviously, if you've been paying any kind of attention, then you are well aware that people in suits and ties commit crimes, too. I'm sure there were people who thought Bernie Madoff and Rod Blagojevich were good guys!
Some proverbs pop into mind here: don't judge a book by it's cover; walk a mile in someone elses shoes; judge not that ye be not judged; etc.
The article in question concerns a teacher in Sweden who was criticized by a local politician because he has tattoos and spiky hair. His name is Sam Aalto and he teaches (at least for now) at Vasaskolan in Skövde, in western Sweden. Surprisingly, (and in a totally awesome turn of events!) the school board is backing the teacher because he is a "highly competent" teacher "liked by colleagues and students alike."
So this raises the question, should teachers have to look like a Wall Street lawyer to be able to teach children? Obviously, the answer is no. The emphasis placed on the look of the teacher totally ignores the more important question of whether that teacher is competent and effective. Just because you wear a suit and tie doesn't mean you can teach and just because you have tattoos doesn't mean you can't! There are some people who are born teachers and people shouldn't discount them simpley because of a fashion or lifestyle choice.
Interestingly enough, this isn't the first time a teacher has been villified for his preferences.
In June of 2008, Emil Koverot, of the band Blodsrit, was fired before he even set foot in a classroom because he was in a Death Metal band, a fact that the school's principal knew when he hired him! According to Koverot, the dismissal was becasue the other staff and student's parents couldn't accept the fact that he was in a hard rock band. According to the principal, the dismissal came after he reviewed the band's lyrics with lawyers from the Swedish Asscoiation of Regions and Local Authorities (SALAR), and determined that the lyrics "conflict with the school's values."
It happened again in May of this year, in Germany, when a trainee high school teacher in Stuttgart was given an ultimatum: give up your traineeship or quit your gory metal band, Debauchery. Thomas Gurrath was a trainee teacher in politics, history and ethics at Hegel Gymnasium in Stuttgart's Vaihingen district. This all came about after a supervisor at the school discovered some of the band's material on their website and told the education authorities. Gurrath was given the ultimatum "on the grounds that non-violence was a key aspect to the image of the teaching profession -- and one that Gurrath could not plausibly represent to his pupils if he stayed in the band."
Perhaps tellingly, both Koverot and Gurrath responded by saying that it's only music and they don't necessarily condone the contents of their own lyrics.
I have 2 problems with this whole situation.
The first issue is that which I have already pointed out above: just because you look a certain way or listen to a certain type of music that doesn't mean you are a criminal or otherwise reprehensible individual. And it certainly doesn't mean you can't effectively teach.
The second issue is a little more problematic for me...both of these men have said that they don't necessary condone the lyrical contents of their music. If that is true then why put it in there? I am well aware (and perhaps they are not) that there are certain people who believe that whatever a band sings about, they mean. I personally don't think the average band means even 95% of what they write about.* To me it's entertainment just like a horror movie, but there are people who take it deadly serious, and not just the fans.
So, the problem (for me) is where do you draw the line. Should musicians take more responsibility for what they write.** If that's the case, then any writer can be held responsible for the actions of others who misinterpret their work. It becomes a very slippery slope. Where does personal responsibility end and social responsibility begin? And that's the real issue here. The people who are against the Sam Aalto's, Emil Koverot's, and Thomas Gurrath's of this world are suggesting that they are somehow better than these people. They are placing their personal prejudices above the education of their children. If any of these men is an ineffective teacher then he shouldn't be teaching, but that goes for all teachers, everywhere, not just the ones that look different or listen to different music.
Stieg Larsson made this point quite well in his book, The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest (if you haven't read it you should...some very good points are made during the trial portion): People aren't always what they seem. We need to stop basing our opinions on the external and start paying closer attention to the internal.
*That percentage changes based on the band, of course, as there are a plethora of topics bands can, and do, write about and some of them are very serious -- mostly the socio-political bands.
**I am not suggesting (NOR EVER WOULD) that musicians are responsible for another persons actions. The situation in the 80's when various bands were prosecuted for murder/deaths associated with teenagers who allegedly took the music a bit too seriously are a perfect example of society blaming the wrong person. The people who commit crimes after allegedly listening to, and taking to heart, the music of anyone, are still responsible for their own behavior. What I am saying is that bands ought to make it clear that they are not condoning the things they are singing about...and yes, I realise this goes to the credibility of the band...blah, blah, blah...but if you don't really condone the things you are putting out there then you don't really have any credibility anyway, now do you?
Some proverbs pop into mind here: don't judge a book by it's cover; walk a mile in someone elses shoes; judge not that ye be not judged; etc.
The article in question concerns a teacher in Sweden who was criticized by a local politician because he has tattoos and spiky hair. His name is Sam Aalto and he teaches (at least for now) at Vasaskolan in Skövde, in western Sweden. Surprisingly, (and in a totally awesome turn of events!) the school board is backing the teacher because he is a "highly competent" teacher "liked by colleagues and students alike."
So this raises the question, should teachers have to look like a Wall Street lawyer to be able to teach children? Obviously, the answer is no. The emphasis placed on the look of the teacher totally ignores the more important question of whether that teacher is competent and effective. Just because you wear a suit and tie doesn't mean you can teach and just because you have tattoos doesn't mean you can't! There are some people who are born teachers and people shouldn't discount them simpley because of a fashion or lifestyle choice.
Interestingly enough, this isn't the first time a teacher has been villified for his preferences.
In June of 2008, Emil Koverot, of the band Blodsrit, was fired before he even set foot in a classroom because he was in a Death Metal band, a fact that the school's principal knew when he hired him! According to Koverot, the dismissal was becasue the other staff and student's parents couldn't accept the fact that he was in a hard rock band. According to the principal, the dismissal came after he reviewed the band's lyrics with lawyers from the Swedish Asscoiation of Regions and Local Authorities (SALAR), and determined that the lyrics "conflict with the school's values."
It happened again in May of this year, in Germany, when a trainee high school teacher in Stuttgart was given an ultimatum: give up your traineeship or quit your gory metal band, Debauchery. Thomas Gurrath was a trainee teacher in politics, history and ethics at Hegel Gymnasium in Stuttgart's Vaihingen district. This all came about after a supervisor at the school discovered some of the band's material on their website and told the education authorities. Gurrath was given the ultimatum "on the grounds that non-violence was a key aspect to the image of the teaching profession -- and one that Gurrath could not plausibly represent to his pupils if he stayed in the band."
Perhaps tellingly, both Koverot and Gurrath responded by saying that it's only music and they don't necessarily condone the contents of their own lyrics.
I have 2 problems with this whole situation.
The first issue is that which I have already pointed out above: just because you look a certain way or listen to a certain type of music that doesn't mean you are a criminal or otherwise reprehensible individual. And it certainly doesn't mean you can't effectively teach.
The second issue is a little more problematic for me...both of these men have said that they don't necessary condone the lyrical contents of their music. If that is true then why put it in there? I am well aware (and perhaps they are not) that there are certain people who believe that whatever a band sings about, they mean. I personally don't think the average band means even 95% of what they write about.* To me it's entertainment just like a horror movie, but there are people who take it deadly serious, and not just the fans.
So, the problem (for me) is where do you draw the line. Should musicians take more responsibility for what they write.** If that's the case, then any writer can be held responsible for the actions of others who misinterpret their work. It becomes a very slippery slope. Where does personal responsibility end and social responsibility begin? And that's the real issue here. The people who are against the Sam Aalto's, Emil Koverot's, and Thomas Gurrath's of this world are suggesting that they are somehow better than these people. They are placing their personal prejudices above the education of their children. If any of these men is an ineffective teacher then he shouldn't be teaching, but that goes for all teachers, everywhere, not just the ones that look different or listen to different music.
Stieg Larsson made this point quite well in his book, The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest (if you haven't read it you should...some very good points are made during the trial portion): People aren't always what they seem. We need to stop basing our opinions on the external and start paying closer attention to the internal.
*That percentage changes based on the band, of course, as there are a plethora of topics bands can, and do, write about and some of them are very serious -- mostly the socio-political bands.
**I am not suggesting (NOR EVER WOULD) that musicians are responsible for another persons actions. The situation in the 80's when various bands were prosecuted for murder/deaths associated with teenagers who allegedly took the music a bit too seriously are a perfect example of society blaming the wrong person. The people who commit crimes after allegedly listening to, and taking to heart, the music of anyone, are still responsible for their own behavior. What I am saying is that bands ought to make it clear that they are not condoning the things they are singing about...and yes, I realise this goes to the credibility of the band...blah, blah, blah...but if you don't really condone the things you are putting out there then you don't really have any credibility anyway, now do you?
Kommentarer
Trackback
