One of the most amazing things about being involved in Education is its proximity to Community. It is true we all live within one, and very near others, but within our nation's schools, there is the opportunity to
shape them in ways I believe to be somewhat less common in the rest of the world. Furthermore, there is something unique about these communities in that they are supposed to help regenerate and improve societal and global communities.
With all that said, I've only just begun looking into one particular component of communities: the idea of being a "Snitch." This is an issue seen throughout society in day to day activities and public debate; in these forms it normally includes racism, dis/trusting police, and a learned code of ethics. Certainly, these are complicated issues with enumerable dynamics. To that end, I found work by CNN's Anderson Cooper to be useful. I started by viewing a segment he had done for
60 Minutes entitled "Stop Snitchin.'" (
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/19/60minutes/main2704565.shtml when this page loads, click on the video that appears in the viewer-it should be the story from 60 Minutes and should run about 13:45) While I found it to be a helpful start, it did offer a broader scope than I'd hoped to discover. But there was a specific portion that seemed both particularly poignant and disconcerting. In the following video, which is supremely brief, footage is concentrated to Anderson Cooper's interview with Rapper Cam'ron. The prolific hip-hop star explains that he would never cooperate with police, not even if he knew a serial killer was living next door to him. He offers explanations as to why, and there is an element of reasoning to parts of his thinking, but it does little to assuage the discomfort rendered by his emphatic discouragement of helping law enforcement officials. Discouragement that, experts say, helps explain why a growing number of murderers, rapists, and other criminals are getting away with their crimes.
The video, and Cooper's longer report, clearly attentuates any merit of the "Stop Snitchin'" campaign. But I felt my research was too biased and continued further to discover some very thoughtful remarks from entrepreneur, record producer, and social reformer Russell Simmons. In the video that follows, he strengthens the "Stop Snitchin'" campaign, which he also points out he does not personally endorse, by pointing out that much of the outrage over this campaign and Cam'ron's comments are expressions of people, "...blaming the messenger for the message. They're trying to break the mirror for what they're reflecting." He points to the fact that this is only one particular message from the hip-hop community and audience members need to be clear they can discern between what is said and the truth it expresses. In other words, though it may be hard for some to understand why anyone would support a movement to stop people from assisting police, we should not overlook the possibility that there might be some who feel oppressed by a system or circumstance and view the police force as an extension of that condition. As Simmons explains it, there are some who think that "...the police seem like they're holding the system up and the system is holding you down." I found the first five minutes of this video especially illuminating.
Cooper goes on to examine other issues related to the perception of law enforcement officials, but the value of Simmons' sentiment seems an important part of the
quid pro quo I felt it necessary to undertake in order to better understand the far-reaching issue of what it means to be a "Snitch."
Although there were other influences that have continued to shape my journey to better understanding this issue, not the least of which is Geoffrey Canada's work, it still seems an interesting conundrum. Perhaps it's easier to examine these implications within a particular setting, such as a school. Let's say, for example, one student has stolen another's iPod. Let's also say this happened in the boys' locker room. Finally, let's assign these roles:
Student T (for Thief) took the iPod,
Student W (for Witness) saw or otherwise knows for certain that Student T did this,
Student V (for Victim) is the one that had the iPod stolen from their locker, and
Teacher is the person trying to find out who is responsible for the stolen iPod.
From here, there are a number of important questions we can ask. Many will also help to inform us more about what it means to be a "Snitch."
We must start exploring the paradigm somewhere, so let's start at the beginning. Student V's iPod has been stolen. He tells Teacher, who begins to investigate. As part of the investigation, Teacher asks Student W if they know anything about the matter. Perhaps the question is posed something like this:
Teacher: "I've heard that a student's iPod was stolen and I'm trying to figure out what happened. Do you know anything about this?"
Already, a number of assumptions have been made: that discovery would be so simple, that Student W might know something (as opposed to asking other students), and that Student W will cooperate. Each of these assumptions helps to restrict and inform the possible outcomes. For example, was Student W asked because Teacher believes Student W can be of help? or is Student W a suspect or someone who might be tangentially involved? Was Student W asked right away or after a considerable population had already been interviewed? For now, let's ignore these considerations. I recommend this measure for the sake of expediency and focus, rather than pomp and presumption.
In order to continue this suspension of disbelief, let's assume that Student W hasn't yet answered. In fact, the actual answer might seem of little consequence compared to the myriad of possibile responses and reasons for the selection of an individual answer.
Once Teacher has asked the question, Student W has a lot to consider. In most cases, even those whereby Teacher and Student W have a strong rapport, it seems irresponsible to suppose Student W might produce an anomylous act. In other words, it seems unlikely that the person asking the question will measurably effect the content of Student W's response; it's more likely, I would argue, Student W's response will be the result of long-term social conditioning. If we can agree to that likelihood, then the response does not matter as much as the student's paradigms that are producing the response.
Again, the question has been asked and we still don't have a response from Student W. The student, meanwhile, is faced with the dilemma of whether or not they should "snitch." Regardless of Student W's personal feelings towards snitching, it will come into consideration because:
- if the students tells the truth and unveils Student T's identity, Student W may face scrutiny from peers because Student W snitched, or
- if the student lies, or otherwise preserves Student T's anonymity, Student W has surrendered their private ability to control the situation to the voice of the public and scrutiny Student W might face from his own peers.
So if Student W's response is irrelevant, we must focus on the circumstances that put Student W in peril either way (because they might be scrutinized or because they're learning to make themself subservient to the masses). The circumstances, I believe, must include the following questions:
- Why would I not tell the truth?
- Who am I helping? How do I know what I'm doing is truly "helpful?" What do I mean by "help?"
- How do I know I'm helping the person I am keeping anonymous?
- Who am I hurting? What do I mean by "hurt?"
- Is this an interaction I control or is my voice incomparable to the will of the masses? If I relent that my own personal will is irrelevant (assuming it's different than that of the group), how do I know the will of the group is moral? Is morality my aim or is this about something else?
- What is this about? What's the point?
- If I'm trying to do the right thing, what do I mean by "right" and what makes something so?
- What am I going to do? Why am I going to do it? Does it matter (the action and/or the reasoning)?
Though terribly extensive, this enumeration has some deeply compelling questions. To conceptualize "Snitchin'" as a bad thing, we must believe some negative outcome results from this behavior. Though one might be able to make that argument in broad instances, as considered by Canada, Cooper, Simmons, and Cam'ron, it seems schools are a less dynamic scenario. In other words, we have to ask what the disadvantage is to Student W telling Teacher who stole the iPod.
Although there’s certainly the unequal distribution of power, which is a concern when such a resource might be abused but is, hopefully, not a fear within schools, this seems too inherent within the structure of schools to satisfactorily justify a student protecting someone’s criminal behavior. Even if we were to suggest it’s disadvantageous to empower school faculty and staff, this is a case whereby we must take relevance into account and focus, more closely, on which is a greater evil: to empower school faculty and staff or protect the wrongdoer. At a most fundamental level, we can at least agree that Teacher should be trying to do “the right thing” by discovering who stole Student V’s iPod. However, it seems hard to believe Student T is doing “the right thing” by stealing a peer’s property.
Again, there’s certainly the potential that Teacher will abuse the power and knowledge in some way, but based on the limited information we have, we do not know there will be a negative outcome. This juxtaposes Student T’s act which is inherently bad. If all this is true, then it seems inappropriate for Student W to withhold information from Teacher as that act, most likely, will only support the greater evil. If for no other reason than that, I would argue, Student W should confess what they know; turn in Student T.
If this is reasonable, and perhaps even agreeable, then what does it tell us about a "Snitch?" By all appearances, a Snitch seems to be someone who refuses to protect the insipient transgressor, the acrimonious, and the nihilist. The Snitch is not someone who lives by what Cam'ron calls a "code of ethics," but in spite of it; someone who does the right thing regardless of tenuous diatribe positing as reason, truth, and morality. The Snitch is someone who seeks the greater good or, at least, the lesser harm. The Snitch, therefore, is someone far less dispicable than the wrongdoer but is an individual in an undesirable situation that does the right thing anyway. Far from culpable, this is someone we might praise.
For now, I need to step back from this line of inquiry, but hope this has been of some value to you, the Reader. I welcome any comments, insights, or other recommended resources I might consult.
Before I leave it, however, I should couch this hypothetical scenario in the harsh reality that there are very real consequences to the decisions we all make. There are deep ramifications for children in schools, particularly. I've attached a link to an article from March 24th's NY Times which speaks to a child that alleges he was consistently beaten up by classmates over an extended period of time and without support from his school's administration. We all know how tragic the results of such inappropriate abuses can be for both the individual and the community. (The link is: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/us/24land.html?_r=1&ex=1364097600&en=a959e88983771fc2&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin).
Here's another link, added on March 28th, that speaks to bullying and gossip: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/nyregion/27gossip.html?_r=1&ex=1364356800&en=20cb0fa24adc0dbb&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin.
