Rules should serve children, not punish them

THE EDITOR, Madam:

There was a situation in which Excelsior High was found to be in breach of ISSA rules, and the school was docked six points and banned from participating in the Champions Cup for one year.

The matter involves a 17-year-old student who was taken to the United Kingdom by his parents. After two years abroad, the family returned to Jamaica and he resumed his schooling. The rule that was apparently breached states that any student transferring from an overseas institution is required to sit out one year before competing. An exemption exists for children of Jamaican parents or grandparents, allowing them to compete immediately if they are under 15 years of age.

Clearly, the rule was not created to address a situation such as this. It was designed to prevent schools from recruiting overseas students to gain a competitive advantage. In this case, the school was obviously not recruiting the youngster, as he had been part of the school community for three years before leaving Jamaica.

I would like to ask ISSA the following questions:

What is gained, in the interest of fairness to all competitors, by telling a child that, because his parents took him abroad for two years, he cannot play any school-sanctioned sport for a year upon his return? In other words, who benefits from that ruling, and how do they benefit?

As principals of our various institutions, should we not be thinking about the development of our children and our country through these institutions? Why should our actions be punitive and stifle the development of our young people? Being forced to sit out a year could severely limit the student’s scholarship opportunities, as he would not be seen by scouts or recruiting bodies during that season. Again, who benefits?

For those of us raising boys and girls who love sports, punishing a child for decisions made by his or her parents, however well-intentioned, can also have detrimental effects on the parent-child relationship. Once again, what benefit is gained that outweighs all the negative consequences we are creating?

In my view, no individual truly benefits. The only ‘benefit’ is bureaucratic. It protects the rulebook, not the children.

Why do we weaponise a rule in situations for which it was clearly never intended and where its application may ultimately do more harm than good? It is the spirit of the law that should be upheld in each case, not merely the letter of the law. When rules are applied mindlessly, they become instruments for those unwilling or unable to think critically about the consequences of their decisions. That is the opposite of what we should be striving to cultivate in our schools and, ultimately, in our society.

DARRON FRASER

Lecturer, School of Engineering

UTech