Guilt by Association

[SheetWise]

A subject that pops up frequently is competency --especially (in free market context) when the subject is public employees. I'm as guilty as anyone here. I'd like summarize two examples that anchor my thoughts, and ask why we should have any exceptional respect for these people as a group.

Teachers. I know very few people who actually work in the field they were specifically educated in (e.g. finance, economics, history). I also know of very few people who would pursue a course of instruction without knowing how they would or could apply it. Any person who chooses to prepare themselves as a teacher has more knowledge about what their economic future is going to look like than any student on any other course. Teachers pay has always been low -- and if there has been any movement, it's slow. My point here is that anyone who intentionally takes a career path, knowing what it has historically paid, and then complains about how underpaid they are, should not be teaching our children.

That being said, these people then form a union which refuses to acknowledge the incompetent practitioners among its members, or acknowledge any standards of performance or accountability. Why should I take them seriously? Even though I know it's not true - why should I not consider them all equally incompetent if they won't bother to take the time to clean up their own profession? The purpose of the union is to allow them all to speak with a common voice -- why should I not assume the union speaks for them?

Police. Police always publicly state that they hold their members to a "higher standard" than the general public -- which they should. Yet, when one of 'their own' is in trouble -- they consistently (and privately) hold them to a lower standard. I have no doubt, that the civic attitudes that I hold are more in line with members of the police force than the general public -- but, since they refuse to maintain standards in their own ranks, why should I take them seriously?

All professions and associations are smeared when one of their own behaves badly -- or have shown themselves to be deficient in the standards the group publicly holds up as a standard. When the group collectively fails or refuses to acknowledge a glaring failure among their own, is it wrong for the public to paint the group with a broad brush?

This would not be acceptable among a group willing to take individual accountability and responsibility. The insulation and protection these groups receive by their camaraderie comes at a cost -- and that cost is paid in the currency of public trust.