1791 | January 2014

            Kidder’s work is one of the major anchors of Mr. Schneider’s eighth grade ethics class. He spends class time distinguishing between right vs. wrong and right vs. right ethical dilemmas and highlights the additional challenge of right vs. right decision making. Kidder’s work becomes further alive in Mr. Schneider’s classes through the presentation of everyday examples of these four paradigms. The highlight of the trimester, according to the students, is when he holds a “mock” honor committee case. This year’s case centered on social media (posting inappropriate pictures) and required the students to consider the “individual vs. community” paradigm. 

             Transitioning from first trimester with Mr. Schneider to second trimester with me can be a challenge for the students. Our goal is to create a curriculum that flows as opposed to one that is disjointed and redundant.  This year I chose to begin my trimester by asking the students to recap what they had learned in Mr. Schneider’s class. I was amazed at the level of retention and enthusiasm for the material he had taught.  The students were quickly able to list real life (their life) examples of each ethical dilemma paradigm. I decided to challenge their understanding of these paradigms further by asking them to list the top three dilemmas they believed their age group – 13-14-year-old adolescents presently face. Not surprising, their responses varied and included issues such as friendship, cyberbullying and peer pressure. At the top of many of their lists was the “truth vs. loyalty" dilemma paradigm.  A number of students in each of my classes wrote about the difficult choice of being loyal to their friend(s) or being truthful to adults/parents. Their examples ranged from the risk-free choice of confiding in friends as opposed to parents, to the questionable choice of keeping a secret that could blossom into a real problem if not brought to adult attention. This interested me immediately and made me think about another common problem in adolescence – invincibility. I’ve seen it myself as a parent of two adult sons. I can’t count the number of times during their adolescences when they said “Don’t worry Mom, I can handle it.” Of course this only caused me to worry more and question even further.

          In her book, The Pact, Jodi Picoult tells the story of two adolescents, Chris and Emily who face one of Kidder’s paradigms - “truth vs. loyalty.” Like many of his peers, Chris chooses to remain loyal to Emily as opposed to seeking out parental guidance and support. Sadly his choice to remain loyal results in Emily being shot to death and Chris being charged with her murder.  Probably many of you are all saying a fictional novel can’t possibly be translated to real life adolescent experiences. Picoult’s fictional plot falls at the “high risk” end of the loyalty to friends scale. I certainly don’t mean to insinuate that that is what our kids are facing with every ethical “truth vs. loyalty” decision with their friends. Though it is worth noting that we saw this same “loyalty to friends” with the Boston Marathon day bombing. Dzhokhor Tsarnaev, the younger of the two marathon suspects had three college friends who chose to remain loyal to him by destroying evidence that may have implicated him. Even though it is unlikely these boys would have made the same decision if they had realized what Tsarnaev was being accused of, they remained loyal even when the risk involved the police and their own incrimination.

           During adolescence, loyalty to friends and friendships trumps everything, even truthfulness. Telling an adult that you are worried about a friend translates into “ratting on a friend” and there is nothing lower than “a rat” in the adolescent world. This coupled with the “invincibility of adolescence” can create a recipe for disaster. A friend covering another friend’s drinking or drugging, even though they themselves are getting increasingly worried about their friend, to a friend not seeking out adult support for a peer who is talking about hurting themselves are not as uncommon as you may think. This is one of the reasons why Berwick Academy created the FISH (Faculty Intervention for Student Health) program over eight years ago. We realized we needed a place where students could go to talk confidentially to a trusted adult (faculty they elected) without the risk of creating a disciplinary issue for their friends. The program has definitely helped but parents still need to do everything in their power to keep lines of communication open with their kids.  Our difficult job as parents is to help our kids understand that loyalty should NEVER trump safety. I’m certain each one of us can think of our own adolescent “truth vs. loyalty” dilemmas. My advice is to begin this important conversation by sharing these and other “real life” ethical dilemmas with your kids. Initially try to stay away from their own friends’ behavior. Questioning a friend’s behavior is an absolute conversation killer.  Only go there if they steer the conversation in that direction.  Again, always remember loyalty to friends trumps everything during adolescence.    

Sincerely,

Cindy Briggs