Controversies.
1. Based on point 17 and 18 above, Mr. Tong claims that “teachers and students will come to ask him why did he allow such a thing to happen as it was not right and there are conservative people in the school” and hence with the letter of apology/reflection, he would be able to “explain (to whoever may ask) that he has already reprimanded the students.”
2. If the “thing” that happened, which was “not right”, points to point 16 above, (“what they did during the demonstration was not similar to what they did on stage”), making the comment “and there are conservative people in the school” would be absolutely redundant.
3. Does this mean that the Mr. Tong, who is also a tutor teaching General Paper, made a comment that is totally irrelevant to the issue? Why did he make that comment if it doesn’t link to the first part of the sentence then?
4. If the two students were actually made to apologize for the fact that they changed the script at the last minute, they are not entirely at fault as Mr. Tong had allowed them to proceed with the announcement without needing to view it a second time. (Refer to point 12 and 13 above)
5. Is it then all right to make the two students write a letter of apology/reflection because they changed the script, despite getting clearance from Mr. Tong himself? Also, Mr. Tong stated that he has to be responsible for what has happened. Does the act of making the students write a letter, and he using these letters to explain that he was already reprimanded them, responsible in your perspective?
3 comments:
Regarding point 3. No. He did not make an irrelevant comment. The way I see it, it's two completely different points he's making. We don't always talk like we're writing a GP essay. Cut him some slack. Why the sly attempt at undermining his capability as a GP tutor?
Regarding point 4. Look at it this way. Mr Tong could have forbidden them to proceed with their announcement since he had not vetted their script a second time. If indeed he IS at fault, his only mistake was taking pity on them and being too nice a DM and letting them present anyway. It's a human thing, you know? And I don't think they should have made any changes to the script, especially if they had not got it approved a second time.
Regarding point 5. Yes. He HAS to be responsible for what happened. Because he let them go, and they deviated from what they had demonstrated to him before, he must now be responsible for reprimanding them for deviating from their script. I'm sure he doesn't do this out of sadistic pleasure. He's doing his unpleasant, unrewarding, job. Being the bad-guy DM that every student dreads and hates.
let's put it this way. there are rehearsals and there are rehearsals. if you rehearse for ndp, and everything went well, then on the actual night itself, the joker raising the flag decides not to raise it even though the national anthem is playing, do you blame the organizers or the supervisor for the event or do you blame the joker. I mean rehearsals went well ley.
right now, we got a coy/suggestive nudge that was clearly targeted to pique the interest of the student. so imo i would understand why the DM thought it was not appropriate.
also imo, i think we overlook the fact that ALOT of teachers are conservative. you'll be surprised. the principal might not actually mind in person, but she and the DM have to answer to the rest of the staff.
so i would think that the guy that posted on STOMP might have been overreacting a little. i don't exactly like seeing my teacher and my school in the limelight for all the wrong reasons.
PS: sorry, double post.
Post a Comment