Dear Editor,

Just when I thought that the impasse between the teachers and the minister had sank to an all-time low with the analogy drawn by former president of the JTA, Dorian Dixon, here comes Immediate Past President Paul Adams to sink the discourse to what I deem standpipe tracing. The only thing missing was a bathpan filled with clothes.

At one to the islandwide consultations, Adams made some excellent points on behalf of the teachers when he spoke to issues such as teacher to student ratio and drew the parallel with our Caribbean counterparts. He also spoke to the politics involved in teacher transfers, etc. Mr Adams had me on his side until he resorted to the tenement-yard behaviour, because for him to have said the minister must have been “temporariliy injected with cocaine” is tantamount to saying that the minister of education, his superior, is a coke head.

How could he have taken the discouse to this level? What kind of an example is he setting for those teacher who sat in that meeting and indeed cheered him on with such rude comments. Does Mr Adams expect teachers and students to exhibit any respect when he could not restrain from spewing such venom. Let us recall that just a day before the former JTA president, Dorian Dixon, made an analogy which was very unfortunate, and I listened to him on radio trying to defend his utterance by claiming ‘freedom of speech’ and that he wants to focus on the substantative matters. I want to say to both gentlemen, yes there is freedom of speech, but one must be measured in exercising this freedom and especially when you are in leadership positions. Also you want to focus on the substantative issues, but you cannot turn a blind eye to your most unfortunate analogy.

Messrs Adams and Dixon need to publicly apologise to the minister and to the nation, because surely how do they expect our children looking on to behave. If this kind of utterance can come from them to their minister I would shudder at the thought of how they would address a student if there was disagreement. This kind of utterance has no place in the discourse if you want the populace to buy into your substantive arguments. It is tasteless, classless and vulgar.

Ralston Chamberlain

Ontario