Gitmo, Massachusetts

The unauthorized schocking of two students by the staff of the Judge Rotenberg Education Center has turned out to be even worse than it initially appeared.

A state agency concluded that six staffers at a Stoughton residence run by the Canton-based Judge Rotenberg Education Center had ample reason to doubt the orders to administer the shocks. The staffers and a video surveillance worker on duty the night of the incident have been fired, school spokesman Ernest Corrigan said.
 
On Aug. 26, a caller posed as a supervisor and said he was ordering the punishments for two teens, ages 16 and 19, because they had misbehaved earlier in the evening. But none of the staffers had witnessed any problems, and other boys said the two teens had done nothing wrong. One boy suggested the call was a hoax.
 
The teens were awakened in the middle of the night and given shock treatments, at times while their legs and arms were bound. One teen received 77 shocks, and the other received 29. One boy was treated for two first-degree burns. ...
 
Five of the six staffers had worked a double or triple shift, and most had been on the job less than three months. The staffers were described as concerned and reluctant about the orders, but failed to verify them with the central office or check treatment plans to make sure the teens could receive that level of shock therapy, the report said. Staffers also did not know who the shift supervisor was that night.
 
Staff members realized their mistake after someone finally called the central office.
 
One reason staffers might not have been suspicious of the phone call is that the Rotenberg Center uses surveillance cameras in its group homes to monitor residents and staff, and a central office employee is allowed to initiate discipline by phone. [Emphasis added]

So what we have is that:

• It's standard procedure for the central office to order shocks based on video surveillance, without on-the-spot observation or any interaction with the students.
• There was no procedure for verifying the identity or authorization of those remotely issued orders.
• One of the students suffered bodily harm requiring treatment. This was not considered a reason to stop.
• Poorly trained and inexperienced people were authorized to restrain students and administer shocks to them.

Now the Rotenberg Center has dealt with the situation by finding some scapegoats to fire for doing as they were told. As soon as attention wanders away, I expect that any improvements in its procedures will be ignored again.

Corrigan called the situation a "perfect storm of things," as if it were just a chain of unavoidable coincidences that caused the actions, but it was Rotenberg's policies and procedures which were to blame. These should be considered criminal negligence or worse. Every minute that this torture center is allowed to remain open is a miscarriage of justice.

The rise of atheism

An encouraging trend in 2007 has been the greater openness of atheists. This isn't something I've ever had a problem with; most people who know me moderately well know I'm an atheist, and none of them have ever given me trouble about it. Southern New Hampshire is probably one of the better places in that respect. But I've heard stories from people, especially in the South, who are rationally afraid of the consequences if it were known that they didn't believe in a deity. The Gallup poll reported in February of 2007 that 53% of those polled answered "No" to the question "If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be atheist, would you vote for that person?" By contrast, only 24% said they would not vote for a Mormon, and only 7% would not vote for a Jew. (I'd have to answer "Don't know" to all of those. A party nomination and a religious affiliation or lack thereof aren't sufficient information.)

Theists often claim that belief in a deity is the only reason to be moral. I suppose they want to go around lying and stealing but refrain only because they think God is watching them all the time. And really, if Romney and Huckabee are as honest as they are because they think God is keeping track of every reversal and lie they utter, it's terrifying to think what they'd be like if they didn't imagine they were being watched.

But seriously, I find it difficult to believe that theists in general choose their actions to please a deity. Maybe I'm just naive, but they give the impression that habits based on their upbringing and the desire for approval by their social group are the main factors. Do theists constantly think of nasty things they want to do, only to stop short because God would notice and call them to account in the afterlife?

Rather, I think what we're seeing is the old "us vs. them" pattern. People identify themselves with groups and declare that their affiliation makes them superior to outsiders. For example, it's the official position of the Boy Scouts of America that "no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God." Some of the old "us" affiliations, such as being white or straight, have come into bad repute. Claiming superiority as a Christian still runs strongly in the U.S. and may have gained in recent years, but it's losing ground in the long run. Many people consider it impolite to tell people they'll go to Hell for not believing in Jesus, and it's even less polite to condemn non-Christians in secular matters -- provided they believe in some kind of deity. But it's still acceptable in many places to regard atheists as inferiors, second only to the perennial favorite, foreigners.

The remedy for this attitude, as for people with any distinctive characteristic, is for atheists to state openly and without shame what they are, to show that they are at least as honest and productive as anyone else, and to refuse to be treated as inferiors. It's a slow process, but it's the only one that works. Legislation, always after progress is well under way, may claim the credit, but legal requ