The do gooders who think they know best usually end up getting the reverse result that they are aiming for. This is because they go purely on instinct and emotion and not actually looking at the issue and checking to see if there is a problem in the first place or not.
Recently the do gooders looked into the hard cases of the very rare times when a teacher abuses the trust placed in them by students and does something like a sexual assault on the student. The do gooders let their emotions run wild and decided that the best thing to do to stop such assaults from occurring is to stop any touching in the first place. Rather than look at the issue in depth and understand it they took the knee jerk path.
In some way they didnât have a choice. They were conditioned by the whole environment of the self righteous around them. All they had to go on is the previous history of other organisationâs experiences whereby insurance companies impose conditions so as to minimise their payouts. Note, to minimise their payouts, not to actually choose an action which is best for everyone.
So the do gooders made some videos which showed in an exaggerated form the âdangersâ of touching and were surprised at all the negative press they got from all around, even from those within the organisation. However the self righteous will still believe that they have done the best for the children because there will be no opportunity for the teacher to abuse the child.
What they donât realise is that they have changed the whole environment of teaching built up from centuries of experience â for the worse, in one fell swoop. Many teachers admit that itâs helpful to be able to touch a music student to be able to give the student sensory feedback about which part of the their body they need to adjust to produce the best performance.
What they donât realise is that they havenât taken into account human nature. If a teacher was to abuse a child a no touch rule will do diddly squat in terms of stopping them. Itâs like laws that make it a criminal act to smoke your work van when you are self-employed â unenforceable. Or the CRB system that stops abusers who havenât got a criminal record. To stop the abuse they would then need to take the no touching rule a stage further and stipulate that all music teachers have to hire an independent observer to watch the class to ensure the no touching rule is kept. But then even they will realise that they are going into silliness â you hope.
What they donât realise is that it creates the wrong environment for a child to learn in. Instead of a trusting environment they have created an environment where children are taught not to trust the teacher because they might be a paedophile. So itâs a double whammy in the child doesnât get the right feedback and doesnât get the right environment conducive to learning.
So in the end the people who know best actually know the least and have harmed the very art they they are supposed to be promoting. All they had to do at the start was do nothing. Not literally nothing, but they neednât have come with new rules and regulations and guidelines. All they had to do was ensure that if a case occured that they acted quickly to stop the teacherâs abuse and to provide support for the child, because no matter what rules and regulations and guidelines they invented they would never beat human ingenuity.
The other problem with the Musician Unions attitude to touching is that other people will pick up on it and use it for their own purposes based purely on the fact that some prestigious organisation has done this so it must be right â again without thinking things through. Which leads to case like this.
In some way the teacher in the case above had no choice. Teachers have been taught and conditioned that schools are more than places of education, they are also places where children learn social skills. Therefore the main purpose of teachers is not to educate but to install socialist Fabian attitudes such as letting their students attend marches rather than do studying.
But itâs not all doom and gloom. Some students do actually realise that what the teachers and others in authority are doing is counterproductive to their education and their social skills. The students realise that to get the right social skills they do need to touch and interact with each other. They realise that when they finish education they will be let loose and need life skills to cope with the real world and its shades of grey where nothing is black and white which is what banning is. They donât need bans stopping them doing things, they need to be taught the nuances of when things are right and when the same things are wrong so that they will have the knowledge to cope with any situation rather than specifics.