The Globe’s Ellen Ishkanian has a page one story today about what happened when Newton North High School senior Henry DeGroot “decided to have some fun and also make a point by writing prodemocracy messages in the notebook of a Chinese student.”
Do you agree with the steps taken by the Newton Public Schools? Are you concerned that DeGroot may have jeopardized this program?
I was always taught that “civil disobedience” is the refusal to obey government demands or commands and accepting the resulting punishment. Leaders of nonviolent movements have used civil disobedience as a highly effective tool in getting governments to change unjust laws by seizing the moral high ground.
As Ghandi said: ““An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so. Now the law of nonviolence says that violence should be resisted not by counter-violence but by nonviolence. This I do by breaking the law and by peacefully submitting to arrest and imprisonment”
Martin Luther King, Jr., who followed Ghandi’s principles of non-violence in the civil rights movement, said: “An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.”
Whatever the merits of his beliefs, based on principles of civil disobedience, this student should have expected and accepted the punishment for his actions if he sought to bring about change.
I’m pretty sure Ghandi and MLK never described their acts of civil disobedience as “definitely stupid.”
Greg, that would come under the “merits of his beliefs.”
I don’t think Ghandi as a kid would come to NNHS and write something to the effect that doing the Pledge of Allegiance makes you all look like tools. I’d go a bit farther than what Ted said because the selfishness of his actions caused harm or potential harm to others Definitely stupid.
It is an insult to Ghandi and Martin Luther King to in ANY WAY compare the actions of this child to what they risked their lives, health and well being to fight for.
What young Groot did was ignorant, disrespectful and insolent. His actions had little to no risk of consequence to himself and he needlessly endangered the lives and freedoms (what little he may think they had) of a family that opened their home to him. If he wasn’t aware of the danger he put them in, then he was ignorant at best which would bring in to question the foundation on which he was building his “cause”.
He may have missed his senior prom, but it is very likely that his host family will be suffering much greater consequences.
I know a student in China who has been locked up since 2012 supposedly for possessing “writing that endanger the public good”. He was the schoolmate of a friend’s kid. She’s afraid she’ll get in trouble just for asking about what happened to him. We are lucky that we do not live by China’s rules.
Mr. Groot’s reckless endangerment of others at no risk to himself was nothing short of immature and reflects poorly on us as Newtonians and as Americans, making us look like ignorant spoiled brats.
That said, I feel the school’s reaction was inappropriate. The student should have been shipped home immediately after the incident at his own cost. He violated the rules of the exchange program. Denying him attendance to his prom was totally disconnected and unrelated. I don’t see what that accomplished at all.
I agree with Greer. I remember being 18 and understand why this kid just doesn’t get it as well. Hopefully one day he will understand the grave mistake he made.
Is that Groot Gregory stirring up trouble again?
I agree that its a ridiculous comparing DeGroot’s actions with Ganhdi and Martin Luther King.
Well said Greer.
I didn’t understand the comment from Superintendent Fleishman that DeGroot wasn’t sent home early, as stipulated in the code of conduct the students agree to keep, because there were only two or three weeks left in the semester. What’s the point of making kids sign a code of conduct if they don’t have to abide by it the entire duration of the program? Instead of punishing him, they didn’t allow him to go to his prom and gave him a page one story to pitch to the Boston Globe. Not the NPS’ finest moment.
Well said, Greer.
I once received an interesting email from a reader regarding the editorial cartoons I happily produce for the Tab. He was newly arrived from China. He requested copies of 3 cartoons from previous year which were specifically critical of some aspect or another of Mayor David Cohen’s administrative policies. He told me that he wanted to show these cartoons, with some other things, to visiting relatives to prove that here in the U.S. it’s possible to be critical of one’s government and still be free. He was truly amazed that we can do this here and not be shot or in prison.
So my take-away from this incident is that the pen is still mightier than the sword. It is one thing to SAY something in conversation but to write it down is when, in some parts of the world, it becomes dangerous.
In case it was unclear, I was not comparing what this student did to Ghandi or MLK. Rather, I was trying to show that he did not have a clue what “civil disobedience” means, by quoting Ghandi and MLK on the subject of civil disobedience. Big difference.
My point was that civil disobedience doesn’t mean you can just speak your mind regardless of the consequences; instead, it means resisting unjust laws and willingly accepting the consequences of such resistance. From the article, it seems he still does not understand that. Indeed, he does not appear to accept any of the consequences for his actions, while his actions may have serious consequences for others, including the Chinese students, the principal of the school, and the exchange program itself.
I agree that what he did was “definitely stupid.” Apparently, so does he. I sincerely hope that others do not suffer for his stupidity. I don’t know whether the punishment was appropriate or not. Personally, I would have thrown the book at him. He not only embarrassed himself, but his school and his community as well.
Given the possible issues described by Greer Tan Swinson, I don’t think NPS described this to the student or if they did, he still doesn’t get it. In terms of punishment and throwing the book at him, lets not forget the case of Denzel Horne who got prison time for a school infraction. Same community, same school. http://newton.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/man-charged-with-newton-north-bomb-threat-found-guilty
I agree it would have been best to have sent the student back home immediately. However, we don’t know whether that would have been logistically difficult at that point – I’m willing to give the benefit of the doubt to those who had to decide in the midst of the situation, which must have been extremely difficult and stressful for the responsible adults who had to deal with it (and, I’m willing to bet, would have been happy to get this kid off their hands).
Sorry I misspelt his name. Thank you for the corrections.
Ted’s point is well taken and the quotes are much appreciated.
The point that this kid’s actions posed no huge risk to himself and what little consequence did result, he seems unwilling to accept make his actions simply childish. They do not fit in with what civil disobedience is about.
If the claim is that he was taught that civil disobedience is some times necessary in fighting tyranny and he felt he was exercising civil disobedience, then he clearly didn’t learn his lessons very well.
What Greer said. What Gail said. The student should have been sent home immediately at his parents’ expense. My son recently went on a Newton South trip to Prague and Berlin. We were told that while local laws allowed teens to drink, they were subject to NSHS rules and that alcohol use or opposite gender students in their hotel rooms would mean immediate shipment home. Whether or not kids take this seriously from now on has been compromised.
This has sparked a lot of conversation and dispute at our family table about free speech, appropriate behavior outside the U.S. and whether there is a difference acting as an individual human being vs. one whose actions creates consequences for others or a larger group.
In discussing/arguing with my son, I capitalized on his recent NSHS trip abroad to the Czech Republic and Germany. He was upset about the NPS punishing the NNHS student when he had already received a 5 hour detention by the school in China.
This inspired a passionate discussion about the human right of free speech.
So, to make it hit home to my high school age son, I informed him , for the first time of (not a good reflection on the NPS or the AP US History class he’s in ) the case of Nazis marching in Skokie, IL in 1977, which to me, is the epitome of American free speech. I grew up in the Chicago area and was also in high school when this happened. I recounted the Supreme Court decision, allowing Nazis to march in Skokie, a community with a high Jewish population that included a lot of Holocaust survivors. I told my teenage son that THIS is the standard for free speech in the U.S., to allow even offensive speech as the price of free speech and to not allow government censorship. I noted that, regrettably, this was not the standard of free speech in other countries. And then I paused… but what about what the rules are in Berlin when you visited it with your NSHS class? Germany is not a totalitarian state and does not censor its citizens as China does, but it has rules specific to “free speech” when it comes to Nazism that are very different from what our standard is in the U.S.. So I asked, would you have the right to doodle swastiskas in somebody’s notebook or otherwise express this sentiment even thought it’s illegal in the progressive Western European democracy that you are visiting? Let’s forget about it being illegal. Let’s just talk about it having an effect on whether future students would be able to participate in the program or if there would be consequences to the local hosts and facilitators.
There are a lot of principles involved here that should be discussed, but I think the most basic one involves disciplinary standards and real policy reactions to student behavior. How are we to expect kids in these programs to not create incidents when the only punishment for foolishness is five hours detention with no upset to one’s schedule and missing prom (not a big loss for a lot of kids)?
I whole heartedly agree that he should have been immediately dismissed from the trip and sent home. I hope that in his reflections upon this, that he will take some time to learn about the sacrifices made by students in China 25 years ago in Tiananmen Square and provinces of Beijing when they peacefully protested for democratic change. Maybe then he will not view his conduct so cavalierly. It also saddens me deeply to think that his “seriously stupid” behavior has placed at risk those who opened their home to him, and his refusal to personally deliver his apology letter is an embarrassment to this community.
I’m very curious, can anyone share a copy of the agreement that students participating in this exchange have to sign? Do any of you have a full account of the comments he wrote?
It strikes me that many people are jumping to attack this student without having all the facts. Having lived in China for many years, and knowing many people who are courageously fighting the system there (and many who have done prison time or worse for it), I don’t think the comments he wrote would have any serious ramifications for anyone involved.
But first, can anyone share the full facts of the case here?
I think a most important point in the whole “civil disobedience” question is that when you engage in acts of civil disobedience you are supposed to be risking consequences for yourself, not other people. And you are supposed to be willing to accept the consequences. Both points seem to be lost on both this student and many others, including the Glob editorial board.
Odilon, this is what he wrote:
“Don’t believe the lies your school and government tell you,” he wrote in a local student’s notebook.
DeGroot also wrote a quote from Chairman Mao Zedong, “It’s right to rebel.” And he wrote: “Democracy is for cool kids.”
But it didn’t take long for the Chinese student to show a teacher, apparently asking for a translation. The teacher showed the messages to Chinese school officials. I agree that he should have been brought home. He was at the least disrespectful and at the most endangering others.
Thanks Marti,
If that’s all he wrote, there is a 0% chance that it will endanger the Chinese student, and even if the teachers are a bit upset, I assure you far worse things are said by Chinese people all the time with few ramifications.
The bigger question is about the ethics of staying silent in order to maintain your smooth collaboration with a deeply corrupt system that crushes dissent among its own people. Again and again we see people shutting up (Bloomberg last year) in order not to “offend” the powerful folks in Beijing, the calculation being that you are somehow able to have long-term influence by engaging in this way. But seriously, I lived in China for more than 10 years, and during that time had a chance to cooperate with some government ministries and many local NGOs, and seen how the system works up close, and I can say with a high degree of confidence that the kind of censorship we see in this case is more damaging than helpful. Sure, visiting students cannot go out and lead a protest in Tiananmen square, but if the exchange of honest ideas, and challenging what is obviously unjust and dishonest about the Chinese regime – this is probably the most valuable outcome of such an exchange.
Finally, I would add that I discussed this incident with many Chinese friends, and all of them agreed that the US school went way to far kow-towing to the government. Remember, the majority of Chinese people also hate their system – including people working inside the government, I promise you – but they know all too well what happens when *they* try to stand up to it.
So engage, yes, but don’t give up your own values and accept the brainwashing (because what he said was 100% true, the school and government are lying) of the current Chinese party state.
@Odilon. I was loath to comment on this because I have never lived in China and had no idea what the kid actually wrote. I’m no fan of Henry DeGroot, but I know nothing about him other than he wrote that letter and comes from a well to do family in Newton. I just thought a lot of the criticism was over the top.
You were there for 10 years and your message rings with conviction, candor and a values system I admire , i.e. “the ethics of staying silent in order to maintain your smooth collaboration with a corrupt system that crushes dissent among its own people.” The fact that we encourage silence when it comes to major trading partners like China, but levy economic blockades against smaller countries like Cuba speaks volumes about what promotes our reticence. My hero Adlai Stevenson once leveled the same charges about tyrannical regimes in general
A friend of mine recently returned from China where he spent 2 years teaching English in the Western part of the Country. Your statements mirror what he has told me about conditions over there.
I appreciate the value of these exchanges and the fact that the coming generations will be less likely to tolerate narrow, tribal and nationalistic instincts if they get to know other nations and cultures as people they have a lot in common with. That said, it wouldn’t be the end of the world if this program is terminated. My feeling is that it won’t be.
For those who are interested in a Chinese perspective (albeit a rather outspoken one) on this whole affair, you might find this essay useful:
http://chinachange.org/2014/06/11/a-letter-to-the-newton-massachusetts-community/