Back to Gaffer's Variety.
Gaffer Variety:
Bureaucratic Nonsense 036:
By Willie Gaffer:
April 17, 2006:
In this piece I have one more piece of bureaucratic educational nonsense to bring to your attention. There is an argument coming down about twins, triplets, etceteras in education. This is from an article by Ginia Beellafante in the New York Times that was reprinted in the Detroit News. It seems the bureaucrats in the schools of New York, in their infinite wisdom, are enforcing a rule that twins must be separated when they go to school. They cannot be together. This is not just a situation in New York. Many systems across the country have rules about separating twins, and other multiples.
The logic of this is as bizarre as the rule itself. The unproven claim is the kids will develop a greater degree of independence if they are separated. There is absolutely no data to support this claim. It is simply an old rule that was put in place in olden days by old bureaucrats and has never been challenged. Now, some parents in New York are challenging it. There is a petition drive to overturn the rule. They want parental choice in the matter. Why not?
For sure, some of the school administrators are trying to stonewall the movement. That is to be expected. One really crazy tactic is the claim that having twins together is unfair to kids who are not twins. Say what? Well, shame of those kids for being twins. How mean they are. Let's spoil it for them! Of course, as soon as there is a debate about something our politicians will get into the act. Some states are passing or proposing laws to make the issue a matter of parental choice. That's okay. Sometimes politicians do good by accident while they are casting for votes.
This issue is one I can speak to directly because I am a twin. I have a twin brother who now lives many miles from me. It was not always that way. Most of our lives, we were more-or-less together. That changed abruptly and for good while we were in the United states Army. It changed because of the army policy that resulted from the Sullivan debacle of WW II. It happened that a group of five brothers of the Sullivan family were all lost in the sinking of the American ship the USS Juneau on November 13, 1942. They volunteered and were serving together.
Because of that tragedy all of our services have instituted policies concerning when and how siblings may serve. This is policy and subject to change. There is no law or "Sullivan Act" that covers the situation. That is what the Navy calls a common misconception. There is a Sullivan Act but that is a New York law about firearms. It has nothing to do with deaths of the five brothers. The essence of the army policy is that brothers may not serve together in combat situations unless they ask for and sign a waver. When I was sent to Korea and my twin was left in Japan, we had better sense than to do that.
Up until our military service time, we were together a great deal of the time. We slept in the same bedroom (different beds of course), went to the same schools, and had the same friends. As I remember it, we were often in the same classes together, though not always. I don't recall that there was any official effort to separate us. As we grew older, it seems it was more a matter of personal interest than anything else. For example, my twin was interested in drawing and I was not. So, while he was in drafting class I was in another class, but I don't remember why. School was like that for me.
The point is, my brother and I were close, but we did have separate minds. Our interests were similar, but not identical. So, even though we remained close and depended on each other, we did drift apart naturally. No great horrible damage was done to our psyches because we were together through most of our childhood. By the time the army separated us, we had already developed separate identities and we were ready for separation.
After our service we developed altogether separate lives though we remained close and continued to live near each other. My twin took an interest in a very nice woman he met in Japan and I took an interest in a woman I met through my sister's match making. Both relationships worked out and we have been happily married for many years.
Now, we were not damaged by being together, but I am convinced we might have been damaged by being forcibly separated before we were psychologically prepared for it. I am here to tell you that twins do have a special bond and that bond is not to be trifled with by amateur psychologists and bureaucrats. That bond will remain throughout a lifetime, though it will soften as the siblings naturally develop separate interests.
The lesson is simple. Don't mess with natural situations on
some pretense that you know what is good for people. The sibling
bond is a precious gift that will be treasured by those who have
it. I cannot explain it, I only know it is special. No one has
a right to take that away from those who are lucky enough to have
it. That gets me to what I believe about people who try to break
that bond. I believe it is simple envy that motivates them. You
only have to see young twins together to realize the bond is palpable.
It is visible in the behavior of the siblings. Anyone can see
it. For some petty people, it can cause reactive envy when they
see a sweet thing that they can never have being shared by kids.
So, of course, the try to wreck it. That's all it is about. There
is no reason for separating twins. There is no logic to it. It's
just plain meanness.
Back to Gaffer's Variety.
|
|
|
|