Home About Us Media Kit Subscriptions Links Forum
APPEARED IN


View All Articles

Download PDF

FAMOUS INTERVIEWS

Directories:

SCHOLARSHIPS & GRANTS

HELP WANTED

Tutors

Workshops

Events

Sections:

Books

Camps & Sports

Careers

Children’s Corner

Collected Features

Colleges

Cover Stories

Distance Learning

Editorials

Famous Interviews

Homeschooling

Medical Update

Metro Beat

Movies & Theater

Museums

Music, Art & Dance

Special Education

Spotlight On Schools

Teachers of the Month

Technology

Archives:

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

1995-2000


APRIL 2004

The High, The Mighty & The Arrogant
by Jill Levy

The forced resignation of Diana Lam is several weeks old now, but lessons can still be learned from the missteps of people in power. Martha Stewart, the guru of good taste, was recently convicted on several counts, one of which was lying to the government about her stock transactions. On the same day, Deputy Chancellor Diana Lam, the guru of balanced literacy, was confronted with allegations of sidestepping city conflict of interest rules and putting pressure on subordinates to get a job for her husband. Three days later, Schools Chancellor Joel Klein asked for her resignation. Martha insists she's innocent. Diana insists she didn't pressure anyone. Alas, the jury did not believe Martha and the investigators did not believe Diana. Both women enjoyed the privileges of power and both showed an arrogant disregard and disrespect for the rules, regulations and laws governing their behavior.

In public statements, Diana Lam claims that she simply posed questions to a number of people who work for her about how to get him a job. Well, several things are amiss with this statement of wide-eyed innocence. First, her questions should have been asked of the Human Resources Department.

Second, she asked a direct subordinate who could only conclude that her supervisor; the powerful Ms. Lam wanted a job for her husband. The wheels were set into motion and, lo and behold, Peter Plattes was hired as a high-ranking, well-paid administrator.

Third, after questions arose about the propriety of his administrative position, he sought and gained employment as a teacher. The Board of Education almost immediately cut him a check for his first two weeks of work.

Such efficiency from a system that has been unable to appoint hundreds of supervisors within a legal time frame, or pay them the correct salary in a timely fashion—no matter how many times we go to court to force them! Ms. Lam insists she did not mean to apply any pressure—she was just asking questions and now is the victim of, how did her friends put it? A witch hunt. Please. Ms. Lam must have known that in her position she must be aware of any perceived abuse of power. That is why there are rules to protect the people who work for the Diana Lams from being coerced into compromising actions.

A mere suggestion by Lam is, in effect, an "order" to a subordinate who believes that his/her position is dependent upon filling that request. Perhaps if she had followed the rules at some point in this debacle, admitted she made a mistake, and then taken appropriate corrective action, she might still have her job.

In all of this, an inherent arrogance pervades, the idea that rules only apply to others. Martha Stewart was exactly that arrogant and tried to cover her tracks. Diana Lam appears to be similarly affected by the arrogance of her "power position."

In Ms. Stewart's case, she lied to the government. In Ms. Lam's case, she misused her power by self-servingly denying that she had any. For those of us in public service and particularly as role models for adults and children, beware the perils of "power positions." Use that power wisely!#

Jill Levy is President, Council of School Supervisors and Administrators.

COMMENT ON THIS ARTICLE

Name:

Email:
Show email
City:
State:

 


 

 

 

Education Update, Inc.
All material is copyrighted and may not be printed without express consent of the publisher. © 2005.