by Marian Brown
Today’s discussion focused the class’s attention on a debate about “Silence Isn’t Always Golden,” a narrative from the GW Toolkit. To give a little background, Emma is a recent high school graduate who is deciding between attending two prestigious Ivy League schools. It is clear that she is a hard worker, and has a strict ethical code when it comes to her scientific work. However, Emma’s code of conduct is much less clear when it comes to her relationships with her friends. With Emma’s knowledge, her friends have hacked into the school’s computer system. Not only does she look the other way, but when confronted by a teacher about her friend’s poor choices, Emma lies and says that she knows nothing about the parties responsible for this breach of security.
The dilemma is heightened for Emma because she has conflicting standards between her code of ethics at the lab, and her ethics in dealing with her friends. She clearly wants to keep her friends out of trouble – does this make her unethical?
After reading Emma’s case the students at Arlington got into a contentious, but healthy, debate over how they would have handled a similar situation. Cheryl started the discussion by asking students if it was Emma’s responsibility to keep her classmates from hacking into the computer system. Alexa responded by saying, “It’s generally something you don’t want to encourage”. Sara responded with empathy towards Emma, saying, “She is over-committed. She gives what she can but she can’t possibly do it all”. Then Molly contextualized Emma’s dilemma in relationship to her own, “This is a more extreme example of what most of us high schoolers face, we all have lots of commitments we are trying to balance between. It’s really hard to find that balance, but if you don’t pick one or the other than you just end up giving half an effort to both.”
Molly’s comment was a turning point in the discussion as the focus was now on the pressures that the students in the class experience in their everyday lives. These pressures were explicitly linked to expectations of “fulfilling one’s potential”. As the students describe it, these expectations are imposed upon them by teachers, parents, and friends. At this point, the discussion ball was rolling, and at a fast pace as students shared and commiserated with one another about the pressures of growing up in this current generation and specifically, at Arlington HS. They have recently been experiencing vandalism at the school: students have been punching holes in the walls, causing substantial damage to the school’s property. Cheryl believed that certain students in the class have friends or acquaintances that were involved in these acts of vandalism, so she turned the attention to focus on that dilemma. Cheryl made sure not to ask the kids to disclose information towards this incident, but she did ask the students to question their place in this learning community. Who are they accountable to? Who makes the rules that govern this community? What happens when someone goes against those norms, and when is it our responsibility to make those instances visible?
Obviously, there are no easy or clear answers to these questions. However, what was so special about today’s discussion is that every student was engaged and weighed in with an opinion, and everyone’s perspective was valued. Cheryl left the students with a final question to ponder, “Is there a time limit on honesty?”
As the students walked out the door to their various next classes, it was clear that they were still considering their roles in protecting and serving the community here at Arlington. Sometimes the best thing an educator can do for his or her students is to create a safe space to discuss the difficult topics that arise in their lives. Today, Cheryl took a very difficult dilemma, made it immediately relevant, and handled the discussion with poise and inquisition. I can’t wait to see how the conversation will continue to unfold next week.