My starting point is the children. It has always been that
way. For me, even with the best form of care-giving to them - both at home and
in other places of socialization, such as school - children are always prone to
making mistakes as they carry out their various social roles. This is
especially true because they are constantly subjected to various forms of
influence, particularly those of their peers, which usually determines the
nature and extent of their blunders. It becomes more concerning in these days
of ubiquitous electronic devices, a never-ending Internet, and social media,
among other things.
But what kind of safety nets or protocols do we put in place
in society to ensure that when our children make mistakes, no matter how
heinous, as they are prone to doing, the learning and correction process is
made easier for them? And in ways that allow them to emerge from situations
wiser and stronger, rather than becoming the targets of widespread public
scorn, which could have far-reaching consequences, if not permanently harm
them.
The recent sex scandal involving a group of teens from the
Lekki, Lagos branch of the Chrisland Schools, who were in attendance at the
World School Games in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, but ended up in a recorded
sex situation that has thrown Nigerian society into a media frenzy in the past two
weeks, brings the foregoing into sharper focus.
My initial concern was the manner in which the story became
public through the appeal of the mother of the young girl involved in the
situation, as well as five other boys. Her sense of trauma was raw, contagious,
and heart-breaking, as was the accusation that her daughter had been drugged and
raped.
Then my instinct cut through the chase, as I wondered how
kids that age could have access to such high levels of psychotropic substances
- could they have brought this with them from Nigeria, and how did this escape
all the prying electronic eyes at the Nigerian and Dubai airports? Could they
have gotten this in Dubai? But, with so many of them so young, how could the
latter have been possible? And I wouldn't be surprised if many of them are
first-timers in Dubai. So, how did they know where to get such drugs? Those
were my initial reactions to the mother's accusations.
Following that, the narrative gradually shifted away from
the accusation of rape and molestation, with various vicious and unkind
interrogations and commentaries on social media, implying that the kids may
have done what they did due to undue access and exposure, as well as a failure
of care-giving. Following that, it became clear that the issue had been largely
broken and driven on social media as a result of the intervention of some
influencer, who did so either as a form of altruism or self-seeking pursuit,
depending on whose perspective one chooses to believe.
As a result, my dominant instinct was spot on - no matter
how much pressure we are under, we will always need to exercise some level of
caution and be very careful about how we take issues involving children - or
even any issue at all - to the highly impersonal and nasty court of social
media. This has the potential to exacerbate such issues, giving them a new
life, spin, and texture that could eventually come back to haunt everyone
involved, especially children.
While the Dubai sex 'tape' controversy raged in the media,
fuelled by the egos of those seeking to assign blame and crucify others -
particularly Chrisland Schools (which I thought was a bit hasty), did anyone
consider how the social media crucifixion and lynching might affect the mental
health of the children involved? Or even harm the reputation of the institution
involved, when everything was still in its early stages and there wasn't enough
clarity about where the fault ultimately lay.
After all was said and done, and with the benefit of
hindsight, one is almost swayed to consider Chrisland Schools to have been
largely negligent, newer evidence and how the issue has panned out forces one
to reconsider, that perhaps the earlier quiet way in which the school had
sought to resolve the issue was possibly in the best interest of the teens involved.
We now know that, contrary to what we were told on social media, the school
reached out to the parents of the children involved and made efforts to both
reprimand and rehabilitate the children involved.
However, the influencer involved, along with the willing
online cohort, was in such a rush with only one version of the story, whipping
up a social media storm, that not only spun and initially ran this version of
the narrative, but also quickly decided on a cast of villains and victims. This
cast was paraded before a lynch mob, which mocked and then hanged the children,
alongside Chrisland Schools, before finding better game in the crucifixion of
parental irresponsibility. I'll get to the latter point in a moment. Did anyone
pause to consider that these were children involved, and if there could have
been a better way of dealing with issues involving them?
Essentially, I place a large portion of the blame for how
things subsequently spiralled out of control on the government. I believe that
the government should develop a better system for dealing with these issues
when they arise, including rules and regulations on how to handle such crises,
as well as penalties for indiscretion in disseminating information about
children. More importantly, there should be warnings about how social media
issues can deeply affect children, traumatize them, and ultimately harm them,
which should be widely disseminated and promoted.
The first step should be the distribution of advisories,
followed by advocacy on the need for people to be more cautious before engaging
in social media trails, particularly in relation to specific groups of people,
such as children. While the Internet - and social media - appear to be a fairly
nebulous and uncontrollable space, there must be some sort of effort to
regulate/manage information concerning specific categories of citizens, in
collaboration with platform operators.
This could be in the form of agreeing with social media
platforms to restrict access to and sharing of content that is potentially
harmful to these groups of people, when an issue arises and drives traffic. Why
would Twitter, for example, allow indiscriminate access to and sharing of the
Dubai sex video?
In addition, the government will need to impose sanctions on
those who can be identified. When an issue is given wings without verification
and is later discovered to be false, and some of those wrongfully accused are
found to be innocent, there must be consequences for the harm done to the
accused person or institutions. This is especially true when the damage is
difficult to reverse or contain.
Importantly, how effective is it for the government to
always respond in a knee-jerk manner by closing down schools when a crisis like
this arises? What happens to the vast majority of people whose educational
development is suddenly halted? Is it fair for them to suffer as a result of
the actions of a few? Couldn't processes be put in place to manage and consider
these issues before rushing to impose blanket punishments like school closures
before the issues are fully determined? While it is heartening and commendable
that Chrisland Schools have reopened and students can catch up on their exams,
the government should design a more sensitive response mechanism in the future.
For me, the most important issue involved in the sex video
crisis is how we choose to raise and care for our children, which could either
continue to lead us to crisis or help us to rein it in. Many people would
prefer not to blame parents when problems like this arise, believing that even
with the best of parental care and intentions, children will always find ways
to express themselves - for better or worse. Furthermore, the school is a more
important location for socialization and shaping of children's conduct and
behaviour.
However, the fact remains that the primary location for
child care and development is the home, which is the starting point from which
children depart and return. I am convinced that we cannot delegate the agency
of home/parental care to other levels of care, such as the school. Parents
continue to bear the greater burden of or primary agency in terms of
care-giving and child-rearing, while the home remains the very first point of
socialisation and care matrix. Children did not just appear in the world; they had
some form of socialization and education prior to their contact with formal
education.
When deciding to become a parent, there is a whole world of
responsibility that must be seriously considered before embarking on it. During
the most critical stages of development, children would require the care and
guidance of their parents. As a result, parents must pay attention and make it
a fundamental part of their parental responsibilities to know everything their
children are involved in - their friends, entertainment habits, and so on; and
there is a need to monitor online behaviour, which is now an unavoidable part of
our lives.
Many children, it appears, live double or triple lives, with
one manifesting at home, another at school, and yet another - which could be
more closeted - possibly known only to a select circle of peers, etc., where
they can experiment at the limits of socially acceptable conduct - possibly out
of curiosity.
We live in a world that is significantly influenced by a
pervasive sex culture, which pervades almost every aspect of experience - from
TV to advertising to popular culture, and so on, and this is one reason why
parents must pay attention.
While I agree that it takes a village to raise a child,
including all levels of informal and formal care, I believe that parents bear
the majority of the responsibility. I believe that the parents bear a large
portion of the responsibility for whatever happens to our children because they
gave birth to them and these children supposedly spend the majority of their
waking hours with their mothers and fathers. That is how I feel about the
parents of the children in the Dubai sex video, both boys and girls.
There is a level of parental responsibility involved that
cannot be transferred to Chrisland School. Parents enrol their children in
these prestigious schools and provide them with a slew of internet-enabled
devices, which they should closely monitor and use to shape their children's
online access and behaviour, thereby limiting their exposure. In a fundamental
sense, it is also the parental duty or responsibility to know their children's
friends, the influences they are open to, and to prevent these children from
having multiple personalities.
It's also upsetting to learn, albeit from unconfirmed
sources, that the mother who raised concerns about her daughter's activities in
Dubai is also being physically abused by her husband. If true, this
demonstrates how the nature of a home can also influence a child's outlook on
life and the behaviours she exhibits in larger social groups.
All of this does not completely exonerate Chrisland Schools
from responsibility for what occurred. The school's response, via Mr Akin
Fadeyi, a member of its Advisory Board, is reassuring, stating that the school
is "putting in place child protection protocols and working with experts
to safeguard any repeat of such incident in any of the Chrisland Schools, going
forward."
And, as Dr. Reuben Abati stated in his column a few days
ago, it is also important to note that Chrisland Schools' management appears to
have changed its game and strategy in crisis communications. The moment Mr Akin
Fadeyi's press statement hit the newsrooms, and considering how the social
media and traditional media were bombarded with a well-orchestrated alternate perspective,
it was clear that Chrisland was not going to be a sitting duck this time and
allow itself to be punched into abysmal submission.
"It is a miracle of a crisis management outcome, how a
rape and drug narrative against a school, which is capable of sinking the
school's reputation for good, was turned on its head until the public believed
"there was no rape and there was no drug under our watch," a
colleague joked with a serious undertone a few days ago. It's a miracle that
the public's attention shifted away from Chrisland and began calling into
question the credibility of the mother of the girl involved, as well as the
credibility of the family as a whole.
Chrisland Schools' management appears to have taught other schools how to take a few punches but return salvos in multi-blows until the aggressor is subdued. Without sugar-coating the reality: It was clear to media practitioners that Mr Akin Fadeyi, who served as communications advisor and spokesperson for Chrisland and the entire team he worked with, did an outstanding job. His press statement was astute and skilfully addressed the issues; his appearances on Channels TV and ARISE TV programs were calm, gracious, and audacious. Chrisland was going through a difficult time, but the school's administration rose to the occasion with a teachable pushback strategy that left its accusers literally gasping for air.
Furthermore, Chrisland Schools' image now requires a major overhaul, and it appears that it has found the right direction to effectively redeem and rehabilitate its reputation with its current communications team. Chrisland has taught other corporate citizens that an organization that takes the media and public inquisition for granted, without professional human capital to manage it, puts itself in grave danger.
© Copyright The Watchtower 2010 - .
Comments (0)
Write a Comment