My guess is that the survey was bought from a private company on a contract that says it is that company's property and not to be shared. Therefore if the school released the form, they could be sued by said private company both for violating copyright and contract. (And the company would want that because they want to resell the survey to other schools.)
Stupid, yes. But I think it is likely that the school has a real legal barrier to sharing the survey.
> Stupid, yes. But I think it is likely that the school has a real legal barrier to sharing the survey.
It could be. It could also be that the people who dreamed up this survey saw that legal barrier as a convenience. You can administer an unfair and potentially useless, invasive, survey, to your students, AND you have a "reason" not to tell the media, too! Had I been a student at this school, I would have put my survey directly in the trash.
The idea that a publically funded school is passing out surveys to students, and we cannot read them, makes me rage. If this doesn't anger you, then something is wrong. The reason is irrelevant, they should have thought about that before buying the survey.
When tyranny comes it is not going to introduce itself. No one is going to hand you a pamphlet, entitled: "Your rights, and lack thereof" and roll out the details of how they will all be taken away. It will do so by stealth. It will do so by employing lame excuses. It will come as a trojan horse. Increased security, no more terrorist attacks! This is all secret so we can keep the kids off drugs!
> The idea that a publically funded school is passing out surveys to students, and we cannot read them, makes me rage. I
I bet all that was done was done under the public guise of "protecting the children" (then again what isn't these days...). Privately all that was done was to protect the behinds of the administrator in case some kid does something "crazy" and the school is sued or criticized. They want to have something to point to and say "Aha but we did everything we could, see...! we hired professionals in the field to find troubled teens, if they couldn't don't blame us".
Simple as that.
That is the reason there are so many bullshit business consulting companies. It lets those implementing risky and unsound/unpopular idea to go and point their finger to and say "see we hired professional and they agreed with us, these are world class consultants, if they couldn't predict failure, how could you blame us, simple administrators/executives/board of directors..." stuff like that.
It is all basically about having a scapegoat in the end.
Never blame on malice what can be blamed on incompetence.
In this case my capacity for outrage is exhausted. I've been through too many permutations of this particular type of outrage that this is in line with my expectations.
And yes, if the survey is as described, the teacher should be commended. Not punished. But that's out of my hands, though if someone gives me someone to email, I will do so.
> Never blame on malice what can be blamed on incompetence.
So, does the early bird get the worm or do good things come to those who wait? We're maybe too inclined to just assert these sorts of things as fact. (This includes me.)
Except this piece of wisdom is extremely valid. Assuming everybody else is both supremely competent and consistently malicious goes against most people's experience. You give humanity far too much credit by assuming everyone is an evil mastermind.
Someone who attributes to incompetence too regularly is one we may call a "chump" or a "sucker" and is an easy mark for charlatans of all stripes. If I don't get taken for a fool occasionally, maybe I could have a little more human faith. If I get taken for a fool all the time, I should get pissed off more.
He messed up the quote a bit, omitting an important qualifier:
"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence"
-- Napoleon (allegedly)
I don't think I need to explain how this shifts the meaning.
"And this is why we draw and quarter drunk drivers" ....wait
Of course we don't draw and quarter drunk drivers. Just because an offense does not require mens rea does not mean that we throw out all sense of proportional punishment.
Firing programmers for creating bugs (an offense without mens rea) is massively disproportionate, which is why we don't do it (at least until the severity and frequency of the bugs becomes unreasonable and other corrective options have been expended.)
An offense without mens rea is an offense without malicious intent. I am giving them the benefit of the doubt and assuming that there was no malicious intent, only incompetence. How can you not get this?
Drunk driving laws use strict liability, meaning that absolutely no mens rea is required to prosecute a drunk driver. Incompetence, rather than malicious intent, can be assumed but the drunk driver is nevertheless pursued and ultimately punished in a proportionate fashion.
Nobody here is suggesting that we drag these school administrators off to criminal or civil court for being spineless tyrants through incompetence. What we are suggesting is that in the "court of public opinion", their 'crime' should use strict liability. School administrators do not need to act maliciously for us to criticize them. Incompetence, without mens rea, is fair game for criticism.
Who gives a shit if they are just incompetent? I assume that they are. That does not get them off the hook.
No. Incompetence isn't potentially harmful, it is invariably harmful. It creates environments with a slavish adherence to protocol unsuitable for purpose. If you are sufficiently old you have seen workplaces like that and if you have any sense of purpose you got out of them as fast as you could.
Stupid, yes. But I think it is likely that the school has a real legal barrier to sharing the survey.