THE PROJECT

"Guilty as charged," the magistrate intimated.  Actually, 
he wasn't a magistrate at all.  He was an administrator with tenure 
in the local school system.  And he didn't really take the time to 
proclaim the guilt or innocence of the accused...he skipped that p
art and went directly to the sentencing phase of his official duties.  
"You will be assigned to 'The Project' for a maximum of twenty 
days."

The defendant sat non-defiantly in the chair in the bureaucrat's 
office.  He had confessed to a transgression at school, although 
the authorities had no real evidence against him other than the 
defendant's own confession of what he had done.  They asked him
 what he had done during the lunch break, and he had foolishly 
told them the whole truth and nothing but the truth.  (Dammit, 
Dad, why did you teach me not to lie?)  Consequently, the 
defendant found himself at the "throne of justice" in the 
administrative offices of the school system.  "Guilty as charged" 
was the implication, but no trial had taken place.  Summary 
execution was more akin to the tone of the "hearing".

The defendant was thus expeditiously remanded to "The Project", 
an "alternative school" operated for the quasi-incarceration of 
those miscreants who had been sentenced there for various and 
sundry misapplications of their youthful energies.

The defendant was not an honor student.  He had enormous 
potential, but little motivation to succeed academically.  His 
social skills, however, were superb, and everybody who knew 
him remarked about what a "good kid" he was.  He honestly 
tried to avoid mistreating anyone, but had not yet learned that
his first responsibility was to avoid mistreating himself by 
failing to recognize the potential consequences of impulsive 
actions.

Immediately after the "hearing", he went to "the Project" to 
check in with the principal.  The principal seemed to be a 
no-nonsense administrator who was comfortable in dealing with 
youngsters who found themselves at "the Project".  The principal 
questioned him regarding the classes he had been taking at his 
original school, and commented that work for some of his classes 
would have to be assigned by correspondence from his home school, 
but she would attend to that tomorrow.  She then briefed the defendant 
on the rules of the facility which included wearing  a "Project" issued 
T-shirt, the prohibition against adornment in any type of dress or 
jewelry, other rules of conduct, the requirement for him to provide paper 
and pencils to his teachers at "the Project" for their daily doling, and, 
finally, she stated that nothing, absolutely nothing, could be brought 
into or taken out of  "the Project" except house keys and lunch money.  
She told him that she welcomed visits and inquiries  from parents, and 
wished him good luck during his term at "the Project".

The first week was boring.  Some of the defendant's classes were taught 
at "the Project", but no assignments arrived from his home school to fill 
out the rest of his schedule.  He asked the assistant principal about it on 
Friday and was told that the assignments would probably arrive on 
Monday.  Monday came and went, but no assignments arrived.  "I asked 
him about it, Dad", he said when he got home, and his father had no 
reason to doubt that he had indeed asked, because the young man 
generally told the truth.  Nonetheless, his father became mildly concerned,
 but opted to allow his son the opportunity of arranging his own life in 
the matter of tending to his school work.  (After all, he's at "the Project", 
which is known for its discipline, so I'm sure they will get his assignments 
to him as soon as they can.)

However, Tuesday and Wednesday also passed without the arrival of the 
expected assignments from the home school.  On Thursday, the defendant's 
father called "the Project" to talk to the principal.  He was informed that 
both the principal and the assistant principal were in meetings, but one 
of them would return his call.  In a couple of hours the assistant principal 
called and seemed astounded when told that no assignments had been 
received by the defendant.  The assistant principal was cordial and 
gracious, and he promised to look into the matter and try to straighten 
out the problem.

However, Friday came and went, and no assignments arrived.

The defendant's father was compelled to be out of town on a business 
trip from Sunday through Wednesday of the next week.  The defendant 
stayed with a friend, also the son of a single parent who was a medical 
professional within the community.  The friend, coincidentally, was also 
a "client" at "the Project", so rides to and from school were conveniently 
accomplished.   The friend's father commented about what a well-behaved 
young man the defendant was and invited him to go with them to his 
mountain retreat.

The defendant's father was exceedingly dismayed to learn that no 
assignments had yet been received from the home school for the subjects 
in which the defendant was now getting serious delinquent.  On Thursday, 
the father called the assistant principal at "the Project" to inquire about the
 nature of the delay and to express his consternation that his son could not 
complete his assignments until he saw the assignments.  The assistant 
principal again promised to see what he could do.  The father asked what 
further action could be taken to expedite the arrival of the assignments, 
and the assistant principal suggested that the assistant principal of the 
home school be contacted.

The father immediately contacted the assistant principal at the home 
school and explained the situation regarding the work assignments.  
The assistant principal at the home school stated that he would 
"check on it".  The defendant's father reiterated that he did not 
want his son's academic progress to be hindered more than 
absolutely necessary due to the assignment to "the Project".  
The assistant principal concurred.

Finally the assignments arrived.  The assistant principal at 
"the Project" informed the defendant of their arrival just after 
school was dismissed on Friday for a three-day weekend.  
Monday was a student holiday

Consequently on Tuesday morning the defendant found himself 
in the unenviable position of being handed twenty days worth 
of assignments to be completed in four days.  He was scheduled 
to be released from "the Project" on Friday (pending continued 
good behavior).  His dilemma was that he was not allowed to 
bring his assignments past the door of "the Project" but his father 
had expected him to keep up with his school work.

He wanted to succeed in his studies so that he could get back 
in good stead with his father and with the school establishment, 
because he had finally realized that failure to do so would exact 
a swift and sure retribution from both quarters.  He wanted to 
get back to his "real" life, leaving "the Project" behind, and 
continue with the business of learning how to live his life.

The defendant made a decision.  It was "chancy", but he decided 
to take the risk of getting caught.  His only hope of  redemption 
was to get thoseassignments finished, and there was not enough 
time at "the Project" to complete them during the school days he 
had left there.  He surreptitiously tucked the assignments inside his 
"project" T-shirt, and tried to appear nonchalant as he filed past 
the metal detector while he left the building on Wednesday.  When 
he got home, he hurriedly ate his meal, and retired to his room where 
he secretly barricaded himself and steeled himself to his studies until 
very, very late.  Thursday was a repeat of Wednesday, and he was 
successful in sneaking his school work past the watchful eyes of  
the "Project" staff so that he could work on it at home.

He slipped on Thursday night, however.  He was talking to his father 
about what he needed to do, and he just blurted out that he had 
brought assignments home to work on.  He confessed that he had 
"snuck 'em out" and would have to sneak them back into "the 
Project" in order to avoid detection.  His father roared with laughter 
at the irony of his son's predicament, and joked with him that the 
metal detector at the door of "the Project" was actually a "number-
two pencil detector", and that he could just imagine what it would 
be like when the sirens started blaring and  the authorities cried 
"Aha!  Thought you could get by with sneaking homework past us, 
did you?  Well, it's expulsion for you!  Imagine...thinking you could 
get away with sneaking homework out of here so you could finish it.  
You're not as smart as you think you are, young man!"

The defendant's story is as yet unfinished.  He has not yet completed 
his school year.  Although he "served his time" at "the Project", the 
delay in getting his assignments may have cost him dearly in his 
grades at his home school to which he returned.  He has resolved 
to stay in touch with his counselor at the home school to try to 
resolve the inevitable problems that being a "refugee from the Project" 
entails.  His father has secretly resolved to intervene forcefully if 
necessary, but has determined that he will not interfere with his son's 
school life unless it appears that the son is in jeopardy of  being in 
severe academic or legal difficulty because of the school's failure 
to live up to their own responsibilities.  The father is not finished 
watching, and stands ready to fight all comers to preserve his son's 
well-being.

Despite the defendant's self-confessed sin which caused him to be 
assigned to "the Project" in the first place,  the father has no intention 
of allowing his son to suffer inordinately because of the school's 
bureaucratic and meeting-filled inefficiency.   Both defendant and 
father realize that they will be fighting against "policy" as well as 
against the inarguable defense of non-communication.  

But, if push comes to shove, the factor which will sway any jury 
is that the prime concern is the education of the defendant.  The 
people depicted in this story are not bad people, but they sometimes 
have allowed their concern with compliance with "policy" to override 
their concern with the welfare of their "customers".

                 END