Fairness

Teaching teaches you a lot about fairness. Like how, basically, it doesn't exist.

Today I suggested to the instructor of the class that a student fail because she had been absent from three tutoring sessions. I had made it abundantly clear to the class that repeat non-attendance would result in failure, giving the students a written syllabus and verbal instructions to the effect that the second unexcused absence would warrant a failing grade in the class. I opted not to fail this student after the second absence, because I prefer to be more lenient in person than I am on paper. But with the third absence, my capacity for permissiveness has been pushed beyond its limit.

No doubt, the student will claim that it is unfair of me to fail her. Last semester, I was exposed to any number of allegations from students as to the "unfairness" of the exercising of my power as an instructor, when I was only operating in accordance with the established standards that they could and should have been aware of all throughout the duration of the semester. But of course, most any punishment is unfair when you're on the receiving end of it, isn't it? And if I don't fail her, the other students in the class will insist that I am being unfair, singling her out for special treatment.

What is fair? Is it fair to try to accommodate the rules to suit the needs of the individual? Or is it fair to try to uphold the rules as impersonally as possible? Neither one seems, objectively, to be more right than the other, and circumstantially either could be interpreted as the right thing to do. One's own experiences and personality will probably prioritize one over the other, but it doesn't seem to me that there's any absolute way of determining the rightness of mercy or justice; when to apply the rules and when not.

When it comes right down to it, there's no right or wrong here. Just a shot in the dark for me, the authority figure, as to what is the best for me and the student in question and all the other students who have not violated the rules but whose compliance might well be contingent upon the equitable enforcement of the rules.

And thus we come to a quandary, where all options are both right and wrong.

I wish the ethical option in any given situation were always obvious, but if it were, we wouldn't need ethics, would we?