Date: Mon, 17 Jul 95 07:51:00 UTC
From: [j--e--l] at [genie.geis.com]
To: [gr conf] at [Mainstream.com], [n--b--n] at [Mainstream.com]
Subject: The Dignity of Power
Message-ID: <[199507170847 AA 038720848] at [relay1.geis.com]>

 The following article is under submission.  Permission to post
 in computer file bases and message bases is granted for
 informational purposes only.  Copyright (c) 1995 by J. Neil
 Schulman.  All other rights reserved.
 
 
 
                      THE DIGNITY OF POWER
 
                       by J. Neil Schulman
 
 
     When I was in junior high, I was occasionally called to the
principal's office -- or worse, the vice-principal.  You
remember, the guys who couldn't "do," so they thought they would
teach -- and when it came down to herding a class full of noisy,
gum-chewing, spitball-throwing thirteen-year-olds, suddenly
sitting alone in an office with a lockable door started looking a
whole lot better?
 
     At home the dog could bark at them with impunity and their
spouses could make them take out the garbage and tell
embarrassing little stories about them in front of their friends,
but at school, in their little ponds, when the principal said
"frog" the kids knew to jump.
 
     When you were called into the principal's office, you were
expected to respect the office, if not the individual.  Stand up
straight.  Speak only when you're spoken to.  Don't give me any
lip.  Don't get smart with me, young man!
 
     This was authority.
 
     Before my time, one challenged that authority at the risk of
getting strapped or caned; when I was at school, the most that
happened  -- to boys, at least -- was that you got lifted off
your feet and pushed against the wall, while the vice principal
stuck his face near yours and shouted.  Then your parents got a
call or a note, and further punishment, measured according to
their temperaments, would follow.  I learned this when in
response to the vice-principal telling me, "Don't get smart with
me, young man!" I asked, "Do I come to school to get stupid?"
 
     The authority of the school official to administer
discipline derived from the schoolmasters being \in loco
parentis\ to the children in their charge.  By nature and
tradition, parents have power over their children -- the standing
to force their kids to do things which are supposed to be good
for them and the standing to use force to keep them from harm.
The ancient power of a father over his children used to be that
of a king, and included dispensing both high and low justice --
including the death penalty.  In modern times, high justice  --
the punishment for crimes and civil violations -- is monopolized
by the state; but a parent's power to dispense lesser punishments
is still assumed to exist -- and authority deriving from that
parental power can be delegated for schoolmasters to dispense
punishment in the parent's stead.
 
     Today, as I understand it, schoolmasters are wary of
imposing many punishments on thirteen-year-olds, because some
thirteen-year-olds might take offense and if they don't shoot you
themselves, their older brothers might do a drive-by later. I am
led to believe that this uncertainty schoolmasters have regarding
the retaliatory power of their charges is destructive of their
ability to teach.  If one does not respect someone, why would
someone pay them the attention needed to learn from them.  It
only stands to reason.
 
     Now let's deal with grown-ups.
 
     Throughout human history, the common condition of mankind is
for there to be those who are rulers and those who are ruled.
The behavior expected by an emperor or judge from one subject to
his power is like that expected by the secure schoolmaster from
good children -- only more so.  Stand up when you're told to,
bend the knee when you're told to.  Speak only when you're spoken
to.  And if you get smart with me, the hooded guy with the axe is
waiting to show you our true appreciation of your witticism.
 
     America was supposed to be different.  Here, the people were
declared by our founding document, dated July 4, 1776, to be
endowed with "unalienable rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.  That to secure these
rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just
powers from the consent of the governed."
 
     In other words, for the first time in history, the kings
were the ones who were supposed to bend the knee and speak only
when they were spoken to.
 
     Power is defined by whose smart mouth gets punished.  If
teachers actually know more than the kids in their charge -- a
dubious proposition with the teachers' unions blocking competency
testing for teachers -- then they can't teach kids who they're
afraid will shoot them.  There was a movie years back titled
\Class of 1984\  -- largely forgettable, except for a scene where
an exasperated teacher pulls out a gun in class and points it at
students when he asks a question.  This beautifully funny scene
shows a bunch of lazy high-school brats suddenly being motivated
to give the right answer.
 
     Neil -- you might ask -- are you seriously suggesting that
teachers carry guns to keep their classes in line?
 
     I'll take the Fifth Amendment on that question.  But I
\will\ seriously suggest that where there is no power, there is
no ground for threatening punishment for disobedience -- and
that, ultimately, teachers better have access to more power than
their students.
 
     The same rule applies in reverse if America is really
supposed to be different from the rest of the world regarding who
has power.
 
     When an elected congressman, Charles Schumer, is allowed to
get away with calling the National Rifle Association -- the
largest organization of gun owners -- "liars" and "flat-earthers"
for asserting that gun ownership is an individual right protected
by the Second Amendment -- then we have a direct challenge to the
dignity of the people's power.
 
     You can't have it both ways.  Is Charles Schumer a member of
an aristocratic class that defines who has a right to a gun and
who doesn't -- or do the people have that "unalienable" right --
and those to whom they delegate limited authority in elections
are subservient to the people's power?
 
     This is a power struggle.  The question of who has the
better right to keep, bear, and muster arms -- the people or
government servants -- is just one aspect to this power struggle.
The other one is who gets called into the principal's office ...
and a smart-mouth named Chuck Schumer is long overdue.
 
                               ##
 
J. Neil Schulman is a Los Angeles-based novelist, screenwriter,
and journalist.
 
 
 Reply to:
 J. Neil Schulman
 Mail:           P.O. Box 94, Long Beach, CA 90801-0094
 Fax:            (310) 839-7653
 Internet:       [j--e--l] at [genie.com]