The Gazette has more on the pending lawsuit against the Whitewater Unified School District, about which I posted earlier today. See, Families debate lawsuit against Whitewater schools.
There’s lot of new information in the story. Interesting questions, too.
1. Behind Eyes or Ears. Most of what defense counsel, Lori Lubinsky states is conventional, and to be expected: ‘Contrary to the facts,’ ‘overreactions,’ etc. Crafted one way or another, almost anyone representing the district would say as much. It’s also true that the district can’t know everything that’s happening.
Consider, though, Attorney Lubinsky’s observation: “No instances of even remotely similar conduct have been reported,” she said. “But if something is going on behind our eyes or ears, we’re only going to know about it if somebody tells us about it.”
The observation is oddly defensive and gratuitous. Why even raise the possibility of something going on behind eyes or ears? I well see that it means to address the limits of administrative knowledge, but it suggests more than it dispels. One would probably say anything other than raising the possibility of subsequent incidents; the scope of responsibility and knowledge for possible events need not be mentioned in the press.
It’s really one remark too many.
2. Behind Our Eyes or Ears. The quoted remark’s not really ‘behind eyes or ears,’ but ‘behind our eyes or ears,’ emphasis added.
Too funny. Has the district no one to speak on its own behalf, apart from counsel? That is, apart from counsel from a Madison firm? There’s a huge difference between the posture of a private defendant and a public institution. Most people understand that private defendants, in civil or criminal matters, are advised to say nothing to the press, or anyone else, about pending litigation.
Public institutions and figures do better to follow a practice in which they do speak, albeit after proper coaching. The same people who win office, or are appointed to high positions, are expected to say something. When the attorney tries to play that role, it’s odd, awkward, and often embarrassing.
Our eyes or ears only works for someone who, well, works in the district. When they attorney says ‘our,’ it raises the question: where are the officials from the district who actually might, arguably, be part of teaching or leadership to justify the possessive expression, our eyes or ears?
Especially, here, of all places, the absence of a local spokesperson — someone in local authority — is obvious.
There’s risk whenever public officials talk to the press, surely. (I have often wondered if President Obama winces every time someone puts a microphone near Vice President Biden.) Still, a cautious approach may not redound to an official’s credit. You can’t beat something with nothing.
3. Quote vs. Quote. Match up these two quotes, and it’s easy to see why a local spokesman for the district would have been a good idea:
A. “Toussiant Minett said his son is a good student and a talented football player in his senior year. Transferring schools would be unfair to him, he said.
“What am I supposed to do?” he said. “I can’t pull him out. … I have to hope he doesn’t get killed. That’s a heck of a thing for a parent.”
B. “But if something is going on behind our eyes or ears, we’re only going to know about it if somebody tells us about it.”
Oh my. Most parents, I think, even those unsympathetic to the Minett lawsuit, can sympathize with the worry Toussiant Minett describes as “a heck of a thing for a parent.”
(Candidly, anyone who dismissively deprecates that worry is only likely to make the Minetts look more sympathetic. If this had happened to the children of a few town squires, and if those parents had not been notified promptly — as these families were not — there’d be screaming heard from here to Palmyra.)
It’s foolish for elected public officials not to be part of this conversation. Foolish, and probably telling, too.