It's a great issue for a debate: to be or not to be? Is it nobler in the mind to ignore the corruption around you, and quietly lead by example and most of all just TEACH?
Or do you fight the good fight? Good, brave people standing up and being counted is the main way things have ever changed for the better, throughout history. For evil to triumph...
I'll bet that Myers-Briggs test could speak volumes about the various ways folks approach this issue. Last year Raoul and I had to deal with this directly: the college we taught at had admitted students that were great at English, merely adequate, distinctly inadequate and incapable of any English beyond "Hallo", and lumped them in the same room.
A sleazebag teacher had instructed all students to buy New Concept English textbooks
, despite the fact we didn't teach from them, probably to collect a kickback.
We were told that even if we failed the students, they would be back with the students that passed, i.e. there were no consequences to failing to work or learn. later the story changed and they claimed that students failing both semesters would have to repeat the year; I still suspect that was a big fat lie.
That sleazebag teacher started giving out our phone numbers to his students. He told our students to go up and knock on our fellow FT's door (she lived in rez) whenever they wanted something.
Raoul's approach was head-on: he got in people's faces about the inappropriate things he saw. Me, I was more diplomatic, sometimes discussing these things, sometimes proposing alternatives, sometimes putting up with crap in the name of Shut Up and Teach.
As the year wore on, Raoul was increasingly marginalized: everyone was afraid he'd say something... uncomfortable. He didn't want to go back for a second year, which is just as well, since he'd burned bridges.
On the other hand, most of the things he called them on changed, and when they didn't he made people uncomfortable. This being the inaugural year of the program, everything that took place set a major precedent for the faculty at that school; they have a chance to make it a fine program.
I picked far fewer battles. I'm a diplomat by nature, and tried the softpedal approach most of the time. I got my share of changes made too, by avoiding the whole Face thing. But I have to wonder how much of that would have worked without Bad Cop Raoul in the picture. I also have to wonder what would have gone down if I'd taken a tougher stance, more in unison with Raoul: would we have alienated everybody, or would we have gotten our way?
This is an extremely valuable thread: here we can discuss that line between misdemeanor and felony, venal and carnal sin, I'll-grumble-but-stand-for-it and I'm-walking-outoif-this-doesnt-change. A generally agreed upon standard would give folks something to steer by.
That doesn't just apply to quitting a job, but also to leaving China. I first visited China in 1987, and wanted to come back, but waited 15 years because of the Tiannenmen massacre. How terrible a thing would the government have to do before I in good conscience would have to leave?