Government as a church.
Today I was reading something about the student who had dressed according to the current customs of the country where she lives, but she felt scolded because that dress did not "honor" the school.
And I write school with a lowercase s, for the simple reason that school is one of the many functions of the state, from "sanitation" to "land registry", to "master plan". There is no need to capitalize, just as we do not write "pay taxes", but "pay taxes".
The fact that a certain amount of clothing is needed because the place alone requires to be "honored" is not typical of state institutions: in state institutions there is nothing to honor. They are not churches.
In churches, if anything, it is necessary to "honor" the sacred building with some special aesthetic symbolism: once women had to cover their heads with a handkerchief, today they cannot use (unless they are very rich) a neckline.
But why then do we ask students for the same haughtiness that is used for a church? When 70% of Italian public school buildings are literally a risk for students, is there really something to "honor" in those buildings?
Is a public school that sends children to die knowing full well that 1000 people per year die in the workplace, is it a "decent" place to "honor"?
The truth is that students should REFUSE to enter a building that is not completely safe in the building sense of the term, and they should REFUSE any "school-to-work" projects until the death rate at work is like this. ' tall.
But all this does not happen, and the school now claims to be "honored" with an appropriate "decorum", established in principle as linked to a moral code (of a Puritan type).
I don't wonder why parents send their children to schools that are 70% out of building standards and could collapse on their heads.
Overall, the situation is this:
Can I know what is particularly “sacred”, to be asked to be honored with the trappings of a religious place?
The problem is more likely a semantic one. When the state is born, the Italian knows only two entities that have any power.
- the state, which has temporal power and deals with particularly practical matters.
- the church, which has the spiritual power and deals with all that is intangible, as well as being (in fact) the only institution to have schools.
The point is visible: historically, schools are Catholic if not religious: consequently, they can ask that the same norms (of moral origin, that is Puritan) be practiced in their buildings that apply in churches.
But nowadays, they must say they are lucky if parents still allow their children to enter: if I were still in Italy I would pretend to know if the building has a certificate of viability, excluding 54% of schools. Other than "decoration".
The Italian has a hard time understanding the difference between "important" and "sacred". Since school is important, Italian has no problem accepting it as a "sacred" place. The trouble is that, judging by the students who died from bad management (construction, but also "alternating school work), more than" sacred "that building seems" cursed ".
We could also discuss the fact that in both recent cases of death during "school-work alternation" the school was a school run by the Salesians, but I am waiting for some other incident to have a suspicious case history.
If the protesting students really wanted to have negotiating power, they should not protest at all: they could easily REFUSE to enter buildings that do not have a certificate of viability. And they wouldn't risk the police (they should just stay at home) and there would be NO legal basis to force them into it.
Here we must stop to ask ourselves a further question: why do we give up asking that the school have minimum MATERIAL requirements (eg: usability) and then scuffle over the bare belly of a student?
For an obvious reason: as long as you squat on the student's belly, you won't question the school's viability. It's like those old people who put on beautiful underwear when they go out, because “if something happens to them and they end up in a hospice, you know what a shame to have dirty underwear”.
But the answer is still in the presumed sacredness of the building: no one would ask if a church is viable or if it is risky to stay inside. Even if the crucifix came off and killed some faithful, it would be an accident, which in a church is called the will of God, and you certainly don't want to ask God to change his plans.
So, if a ceiling comes off and a student dies, it is the will of any divine entity that is in charge of the presumed sacredness of the school, let's call it "Pierino". So, if a student dies because a ceiling collapses then it was "Pierino's will", and obviously "Pierino" himself is deserving of such due respect that the students do not have to uncover the belly. Woe to disrespect "Pierino".
In the end, therefore, the conclusion is this:
Italian does not expect anything from school, not even the slightest (that is, that EVERYTHING is possible to make the student come back ALIVE from lessons), but he has no problem saying that in the name of "Pierino" (and his faithful) the belly must remain covered.
Just as no one would have the arrogance to expect from God that no one dies in a church, people feel arrogant in asking Pierino not to kill their children while they are at school.
And with this, we understand the reason for this caciara: it is better to talk about the belly of the students than the collapsing roof.
In the name of Pierino.