Ghost of Unfair Fellowship & Guise of Kindwords and Warm eye contact with Vague and Disrespectful Intention Trampling Your right.
Ghost of Unfair Fellowship of Public Officers and Teachers! Don’t Trust that Superficial kind words and warm eye contact can Protect your rights to be a humanbeing with Equality and Dignity as much as the Public Officers and Teachers.
Jenny L. wrote,
Unfair Fellowship of Long tradition Destroys The Trust and Credibility of Public Offices and School System. Don’t Misunderstand that Superficial Kindwords and EyeContacts Are Genuinely Fair and Protect Your Rights to be a Human being in Equality and Your Dignity.
Get Thought-Scent’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
It is an oft-observed truth that teachers, by virtue of their seniority and authority, hold a position of undeniable power over their students. This dynamic, so inherent to the classroom, may lend itself too easily to dismissing or overriding the voices of the young, particularly when a teacher, perhaps unconsciously, chooses not to heed their perspectives. Such a tendency, it is said, is not merely an occasional lapse but a hallmark of the teaching profession — a characterization that, while not universal, carries a weight of truth. Teachers, long accustomed to issuing directives in the structured environment of their classrooms, may find this commanding disposition seeping into the more intimate spheres of their lives. At home, their spouses and children may bear the brunt of this authoritative habit, a trait that, while not shared by every educator, is prevalent enough to be noted as a peculiar disadvantage of being wed to one who wields the chalk.
Yet, the implications of this tendency extend far beyond the domestic sphere. Consider the teacher who, after years of shaping young minds, transitions into the role of a public officer — a position vested with the power to influence, and at times dictate, the trajectories of others’ lives. Here, the echoes of their former profession linger. Steeped in a habit of authority, such individuals may continue to favor decisive action over dialogue, sometimes trampling the intentions and desires of those they serve. This is no small matter, for in the public realm — be it within the intricate machinery of the welfare system or other bureaucratic domains — these officers wield a power that dwarfs that of their former students or the users now before them. The disparity in authority creates a perilous dynamic, one where the will of the individual is too easily subsumed beneath the weight of institutional prerogative.
What complicates this further is the veneer of civility that often cloaks such interactions. These officers, seasoned by years of managing classrooms, may deploy a polished arsenal of kind words and refined manners, crafting an illusion of empathy and understanding. Yet beneath this surface lies a troubling reality: the users of these systems — those seeking aid, guidance, or justice — may struggle to discern whether the communication they receive is rooted in genuine respect or merely a façade. The laws and regulations, meant to be applied with fairness and tailored to individual needs, risk becoming rigid tools of enforcement rather than instruments of equity. A smile, a nod, an expression of seeming compassion — these can mask a communication style that is, at its core, coercive and one-sided, leaving the recipient disoriented, their concerns dismissed under the guise of procedural necessity.
Such interactions can take on an almost theatrical quality. Picture the scene: a user, perhaps vulnerable or desperate, articulates their plight, only to be met with a rehearsed refrain: “I understand your situation,” the officer intones, eyes warm with practiced sympathy, “but our office must insist that you accept what the system provides. There is no alternative, unless you choose to forgo this caseworker entirely — though, I must add, you should give them another chance.” The implication is clear: compliance is not optional, and dissent is met with subtle threats of exclusion or loss of rights. This dynamic, where authority is exercised not through overt force but through a carefully curated performance of benevolence, can be profoundly disorienting, even destructive, to those who seek not just assistance but a modicum of agency in their own lives.
In certain contexts — Norway, for instance, is often cited — this pattern is said to be entrenched, a tradition almost, where public officers and teachers alike rally to protect their colleagues, prioritizing loyalty over the needs of students or system users. Such solidarity, while admirable in its camaraderie, can manifest as a callous disregard for those on the receiving end of their decisions. It is a communication style that, for all its polished exterior, betrays a troubling imbalance — one that stifles voices, undermines trust, and, in its worst moments, erodes the very principles of fairness and support that these institutions claim to uphold. To communicate in this way is not merely ineffective; it is, in its quiet devastation, a betrayal of the very purpose of authority: to serve, not to subjugate.
