Perhaps hindsight will vindicate Nanaimo-Ladysmith school district officials for cutting short a trip for students who witnessed the deadly truck attack in Nice, France, last week. Perhaps hindsight will show the decision was unnecessary.
But that鈥檚 the luxury of hindsight 鈥� it provides ample time to consider and reconsider all the information, a luxury that school officials didn鈥檛 have when they learned of the attack.
Eight-five students and 12 chaperones were in Nice on the first leg of a two-week trip. Several students were at the Bastille Day celebrations on July 15 when Mohamed Bouhlel drove a 19-tonne truck into the crowd for two kilometres and fired shots, killing 84 people and injuring hundreds of others.
The horror of hearing of such an attack would be multiplied by the knowledge that a group of local students was in the vicinity of the attack. Some witnessed the carnage.
The first task was to determine if any students were injured. A generation ago, that would have been a nightmare. For all the drawbacks of social media and the ubiquitous smartphones, it鈥檚 reassuring that a person at such a scene can immediately send an 鈥淚鈥檓 OK鈥� message.
The district soon ascertained that no students were injured or missing, and parents were updated through social media.
The next step was more difficult. Bring the students home or let them continue their trip?
It鈥檚 a dilemma that doesn鈥檛 have a clear wrong or right solution; it鈥檚 a 鈥渄amned if you do, damned if you don鈥檛鈥� situation. There are no precedents to guide those who must decide. The handbook of instructions likely doesn鈥檛 include step-by-step instructions on what to do when students on a school-sanctioned excursion are at the scene of a terrorist attack.
After consulting with Global Affairs, the sa国际传媒 Education Ministry of Education and risk-assessment experts, the school district decided to bring the students home and cancel the remainder of the trip, which included a week in Spain.
That decision was made despite the fact that most of the students, apparently, wanted to continue their trip. And why not? For most of them, it was probably the trip of their lifetimes thus far. Many had saved their money for several years to be able to take the trip. Cutting it short was a keen disappointment.
Was there danger in continuing the trip? The chances of the students being in the vicinity of another terrorist attack were very small, statistically speaking.
On the other hand, airports, train stations, tourist attractions and other places where many people congregate are favourite targets for terrorists.
The aim of terrorism is to spark panic and instil fear. Was it in the students鈥� best interests to give in to that fear? Or should they learn that we mustn鈥檛 let life鈥檚 many risks cripple and contain us?
There鈥檚 a corporate mentality that shies as far away from risk as possible 鈥� don鈥檛 do anything that increases your chances of being sued. Did the school district give in to that mentality, or were officials acting out of proper concern for the safety of the students and the chaperones, some of whom were district employees?
Experts make risk assessments, but those assessments are, at best, educated guesses, and don鈥檛 change the fact that the school district was dealing with unknowns.It took the cautious approach.
The decision to end the trip caused a backlash among some parents. Others thought the decision was the correct one. Most, understandably, had mixed feelings.
There isn鈥檛 a clear right or wrong to this issue. What is clear, though, is that school officials were in an unenviable position of making someone angry, no matter how they decided.
