Closed is not private [ENG]
Previously published in Dutch: https://woutermareels.substack.com/p/besloten-is-niet-privaat (04.27.2023)
For a few days now, there has been commotion on the internet due to the fact that the justice system is investigating a group of teachers, apparently in response to messages in a "closed chat group." It seems as if half of united Twitterstan believes that freedom of speech is in danger and that "one cannot say anything anymore."
It's interesting to have questions about this... What about freedom of speech? Colleague Mattias Desmet found it useful to write something about this. You can read it here: https://mattiasdesmet.substack.com/p/no-one-escapes-the-new-morality
.We notice that he mainly focuses on what could be summarized as thought police. He also writes about private vs public.
As a result of this, I am writing this personal message to Mattias, as he often - rightfully so - complains that people talk about him but not with him.
Dear Mattias,
I read that you honestly say that you don't know what it's about. That's fair. In order to inform you, here are some messages from people closer to the situation that they posted on the Facebook page of colleague Steve Van Herreweghe, you can read them there yourself: Fb-page Steve
"I know a victim of one of these teachers and have heard how this group presents themselves on and off school grounds. Trust me, their inappropriate behavior goes much further than what is being discussed here. There have been complaints for years (even to the police) about this group of physical education teachers, mainly from parents/colleagues/students, but also from people in their surroundings. The management has been covering for them all this time because they seemed untouchable due to their permanent appointment. They cross many boundaries of others and especially those of minors. It is sick and disturbed, I am a teacher myself and was shocked when I heard firsthand what they are capable of."
Or another one:
"I find this difficult Steve, partly because my oldest child goes to that school and everyone there is rightly upset. I also have some more inside information. As a father, I would find it very difficult if 11 teachers explicitly send sexually explicit messages about my daughter and what they would like to do with her. Just to give an example... And you can say that no harm has been done, but what if it hadn't stopped with those messages?"
I don't know to what extent these messages are true, but they provide a context both possible and worth considering. You can find more information about the situation here:…https://www.demorgen.be/nieuws/dit-moest-ooit-mislopen-maar-de-bom-is-nog-laat-gebarsten-hoe-leerkrachten-van-sportschool-hasselt-zich-bezondigden-aan-racisme-en-homofobie~b8dd31c5
Some reflections after reading your text and these messages:
- When you send posts like yours out into the world, it's also useful to check the legal aspect. We can read the following:
Are messages in a private WhatsApp group private?
"People often have a wrong idea of what closed or private really means," explains a legal expert from the equal opportunities centre Unia. "In the case of the suspended teachers in Hasselt, we are talking about communication in a group, and legally speaking, that is considered public, even if the group is closed. Only one-on-one communication is private."
Vicky Buelens, a lawyer specializing in labor law, also confirms that messages in a closed group can be punished. "The law makes no distinction between virtual and physical communication, but simply states that the communication must take place in public: that place does not have to be accessible to everyone, but multiple people must have the right to visit it. And then there are certain restrictions on the right to free speech that you must take into account."
That doesn't mean that your employer can now request and read all your WhatsApp messages, explains privacy expert Magali Feys. "In this case, the messages were brought to the attention of the management by one of the members. If those messages are inappropriate, then the school must initiate an investigation in that professional context. If only discriminatory messages are reported, then the school cannot simply request those messages. First, a factual investigation must be conducted into, for example, misconduct in the workplace." (Source: https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2023/04/19/wat-mag-er-in-een-whatsapp-groep-wel-of-niet/)
- Once you are with more than 2 people, legally speaking, you are no longer having a private conversation. From then on, the conversation has a public character. People are now learning new technologies to communicate, but they haven't fully grasped the implications of different forms of communication. There seem to be a lot of misunderstandings about this. Often, people don't know what private or public communication is on social media. Instead of confirming people in their misunderstanding, we can also teach them a thing or two.
- A group of colleagues is - and I know the boundary is vague - not a group of friends. Your colleagues are not your friends but people with whom you maintain professional relationships and who may wish you to behave professionally. Typically, this means keeping your private filth to yourself or sharing it one-on-one.
- According to reports in the media, it was a non-private (because more than 2) WhatsApp group of people who were not friends (because they were colleagues). This is actually similar to what teachers could say to each other in the teachers' lounge (physically or virtually, it doesn't make a difference). I wonder which colleague-teacher would not have questions in the hypothetical case where another teacher explicitly indulges in sexual fantasies about a 13-year-old student among colleagues in the teachers' lounge. Ultimately, I don't know what was written in this case. Usually, this person will still wonder if this person is suitable for teaching. If there is anything that psychoanalysis has taught us about discourse, it is Lacan's discourse theory, which shows us, among other things, that the position from which one speaks about something or someone to another affects the form and effects of the discourse and the position of the other person. Reducing someone to an object through a (master-) discourse does not seem very conducive to personal growth.
- Isn't it actually brave and wonderful of that one teacher that he didn't just stand and watch but practiced "true speaking"? Suppose something had happened to one of the children, what would the story have been? That they, indoctrinated by the group spirit, no longer dared to think independently and just watched, doing what the majority did... (Cfr the Solomon Ash experiment where everyone goes along with the majority). Cfr Bystander effect... Then that teacher who has now played the role of whistleblower would be seen as an accomplice... Just standing there and letting it happen... Is that not a form of the banality of evil?
- I understand that this fits into a story you have been telling for some time, about the compelling nature of group spirit, but perhaps it would be more useful not only to apply this to society as such, but also to what happened inside that WhatsApp group. Moreover, it would be useful to include insights into discourse and its effects, public vs private, etc. in your analysis and not just focus on what suits you to detect yet another totalitarian trait...
- If one assumes that the justice system still works as it always has, without an increase in privacy violations, and if one relies on the message that there have been problems for years and reports have been made... then one can assume that there was a complaint first, then a teacher spoke out, and then an investigation was launched to find evidence, including interprofessional exchanges between colleagues. Such things have been happening in the justice system for years: someone commits sexual offenses, and then computers and mobile phones are seized to get a better view of the suspect and to collect additional evidence. Thus, after a complaint from one parent that their child was groomed by a teacher online, it can emerge that 399! other children were also groomed. https://m.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20230427_93439887 . Once I conducted a judicial expert investigation in which such seized material was actually the only material that could prove the innocence of the person (WhatsApp messages can be faked with, for example, Whatsprank). In my opinion, there is no sudden movement underway where the thought police come to check your conversations on social media and then punish you...and if that were the case, this case does not illustrate it in my opinion.
One last thing: in line with the (somewhat poorly substantiated but worth considering) counter-argument of Breggins directed at you that you engage in victim blaming, it seems like you are here taking the side of (as of yet innocent but potentially boundary-crossing teachers according to the reporting) and once again not really siding with the victims... Perhaps it would be useful for you to clarify your position on this?
Best regards,
Wouter Mareels