Skip to main content

Scrutinized

 


I did not expect that football would inspire today’s blog post, but, there you have it:

Ravens’ Matt Skura says family received ‘hateful and threatening messages’ after loss to Patriots. "They do not deserve to be scrutinized for something they did not do.” 

This information comes from an article by Jonas Shaffer in the Baltimore Sun. It’s yet another indicator that toxic online behavior is a serious problem in our culture. What is it that emboldens ordinary human beings to explode the boundaries of decent behavior and reach out to hurt others? What makes them feel justified? 

The reason this is weighing heavily on my mind this morning does have a more local source. I’ve been catching up on local reactions to the Board of Education decision last night to remain fully virtual for the third quarter of the school year. While I expected that some would be disappointed, frustrated, or even angry, what I did not expect was the outpouring of insults and accusations against the student member of the board, Zach Koung. Angry parents had zeroed in on his vote as being “the deciding vote” to remain virtual. With that, the firehose of fury was targeted on him.

Posters asserted that his vote was paid for, or that he wasn’t a “normal” senior. He was accused of having a sick and demonic agenda. Others maintained he was under the complete control of board members they didn’t like. But one post stood out from the rest.

Hello, FBI witness protection program?

What do you suppose that means? It feels ominous to me, almost like a threat. 

Suggesting that a Howard County student might want to “disappear” after casting a vote that you don’t like has crossed so far over the line as to be in brand new territory. It wouldn’t be acceptable to say about any member of the board. And, laughing it off as a joke, which might very well happen if the poster were confronted, is no excuse.

Did your mother and father raise you to act like this? What kind of upbringing produces this kind of toxic behavior? Does your family know you post things like this? Your friends? Your employer?

It’s simple, really. If a football player has a bad game, you don’t threaten their family. If someone casts a vote you don’t like, you don’t wage an online war that could make their life less safe. No, there’s no “rule book of life” that says this. Am I naive to believe in my heart that this is not how to treat people?

Is there a way to turn this toxic trend around? Where do we start?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Teacher Gifts

Today is the last day of school before the Winter Break. It’s a good time to remember the far-reaching nature of our public school system. You may not have children. You may have sent your children to independent schools. It matters not. You will be impacted one way or another. Yesterday I read a long thread on Facebook about several waves of illness in the schools right now. There’s influenza A and norovirus, I believe. And of course there’s COVID. Apparently in some individual schools the rate of illness is high enough for school admin to notify parents.  When I was little the acceptable holiday gift for a teacher was one of those lovely floral handkerchief squares. (I don’t know what it was for male teachers. They were rare in my elementary years.) These days the range of teacher gifts is wider and I have fond memories of Target gift cards which I have written about before. I think it’s safe to say that giving one’s teacher Influenza, norovirus, or COVID is not the ideal holiday...
1 comment
Read more

F ³: We Are Not Entitled

  A college student went missing. His family and friends were distraught. The community was encouraged to be on the lookout and spread the word.  Days passed.  They must have been agonizing days for those who cared about the missing student. Thoughts that foul play had been involved cannot have been far from their thoughts.  Then, at last, the student was found. Alive. The news was shared with the public.  So. Much. Relief. A family had been reunited with their child. Even though we know that life is complicated, I think it is okay to accept this as a happy ending and leave it at that.  But the world of social media says no. For every expression of joy at the news came questions and even judgement. It became clear to me that some folks felt entitled to an explanation. They wanted the backstory. It’s as though they felt that, by enlisting the help of the public on social media, the authorities now owed them all the details. Television dramas often weave curr...
2 comments
Read more

Separate and Unequal

  Remember “Separate but equal”? Remember how that really meant that Black schools languished in  broken-down buildings without adequate heat or toilet facilities, with cast-off, ragged learning materials, underfunded and largely ignored? The Supreme Court struck that down in 1954. The evidence was clear that separate was not equal. Plessy v Ferguson had led to - - no, endorsed - - deeply unequal schooling and opportunities. We tend to think of Brown v Board as being purely about racial integration. It was not.  It was about the logical consequences of segregation. And they were not, not, not equal. The ruling in 1954 didn’t transform public education for non-whites into a land of milk and honey by any means. But it articulated some essential truths in a way that made including everyone a legal precedent which could be relied upon and built upon. It was better than what came before it but it rested upon unsteady ground. It did not necessarily change the hearts or minds ...
1 comment
Read more