Here is the last part of my "Aggression Must Not Be Rewarded". Here we will find (A) (B) and (C) trying to see if they have understood what the phrase means.

(A): I hope you two had a nice break. I know I did. As you all know the Principal has imposed a deadline on this matter. He wants a report by the end of the day. I don't know if that's possible, but we ought to try.

(C): I concur. We have spent a lot of time on one student's issue. I always thought it was a clear-cut case. A student cannot demand a guaranteed passing grade. Period. I have never heard of such a ridiculous demand in my twenty years of teaching.

(B): I have never been a teacher. Still I thought it was a strange demand. Having said this I must acknowledge that I have learned a lot. But there are a few loose ends that I want to see cleared--at least for me--before we submit our report. I still don't know who this guy is. He says a lot of "we" and "us" like he represents a group. Who does he represent? Is he really serious about blowing up the building? And where did the explosives come from? I mean there are so many questions, it may take another week to deal with them. But I know we have only one day. So let's do the best we can to wrap it up on time.

(A): Surely, this has been going on for a while, but I still want to know what "Aggression Must Not Be Rewarded," really means.

(C): Why are you both looking at me, like I have all of the answers?

(B): You are better informed than the two of us put together. You seem to know what made him tick.

(C): If you remember, the Principal told us that there are about 600 students and faculty in the building. Either 40 or 50 are the student's relatives. His closest family members are out of the country or in the big city, untouched and unaffected by the turmoil. He has lots of foster children in the building.

(A): Is the fact that the foster children far outnumber his family members that he seems to care less about who gets blown to pieces?

(C): In part yes. There are some cold-hearted foster parents who don't care about the welfare of those in their protection. He's one of those. He has placed his family members out of harms way--in underground bunkers. He thinks they will be safe there.

(B): Did he not take into account the fact that they may be buried alive?

(C): A good question. I don't think he gave it much thought. He's obsessed with getting a Diploma. It matters not much to him how much he has to sacrifice to get it. He has had his eyes on the Diploma for so long that he feels he's not to be denied now.

(A): I take it that his assumption is that most of those who would probably perish are the foster children.

(C): Right. That's his calculation. He does not care. He does not share the same language with them. Nor culture. He does not see them as part of his future.

(B): You mean he can put up with any amount of loss? I am beginning to get it.

(A): What I don't get is where did that entire explosive come?

(C): For a long time he has managed the Central Famine Prevention Center.

(A): I don't see the connection...

(B): Nor do I. what does famine has to do with explosives. I don't get it! I have seen stranger connections, but not anything like this.

(C): He sold the food and other commodities in the market for cash.

(A): What about the starving people? What did they have to eat?

(C): He did not care whether they ate or not. As I said most are foster children. And like his predecessor foster parents, he did not care about the children.

(B): I guess the obvious question is what did he do with the cash?

(C): He bought arms with it.

(A): You must be kidding. Who would sell arms to starving people?

(B): You would be surprised. When it comes to money, a hungry man's cash is as good as the coffers of the well-fed. You know what they taught us in college about supply and demand. As long as there's demand for something, if the price is right, someone will supply it. I take it it's also true for arms.

(C): I am glad to see you still remember your ECON 101. In this case a lot of people you don't expect to engage in arms trade, sold arms to this starving man.

(A): I was looking to see who was selling what and to whom. Much to my surprise I saw North Korea on the list. I thought I saw a first: a starving nation selling advanced weaponry to another equally starving nation.

(C): But the irony does not stop there. Taxpayers in the US are paying North Korea not to go ahead with its nuclear reactor. North Korea uses the money to expand its arms manufacturing capability. It builds missiles for exports. Again the same taxpayers send food to the student's country to feed its people. Instead the food is sold to pay for missiles form North Korea. It's amazing. Absolutely amazing

(B): But didn't I read somewhere that the two -- N. Korea and the student's country-- have history of collaboration.

(A): Yes they do. They also have something in common. The North Koreans have a houseguest, a fugitive from justice. The student is aware of the fugitive, since he's his countryman, and is wanted for a crime against humanity charge.

(B): If he's a fugitive why doesn't the North Koreans turn him in?

(A): I don't know if anyone asked them. But I suspect no one is eager to ask for the fugitive to be repatriated

(C): I don't get it. Why not? If he's a wanted man, and if he has committed hideous crimes as alleged, why not go after him?

(A): Because if he's returned the public may give him a hero's welcome. What's more the fugitive's colleagues in crime who have been charged with crime against humanity are being let go, one by one.

(B): This thing is much more complicated than I thought. Perhaps we should not pursue this angle. I am afraid it will take us far afield. I suspect if the North Koreans were offered ransom money for the fugitive's head, I think they would have turned him over. Such is their desperation for hard currency. But I am sure no one is going to demand his head. The student's folks are safer with the fugitive way out there. Way out.

(C): It's true. They dare not bring the fugitive to justice. Having said this, I must say I find the irony inescapable. North Korea is the seller of millions worth of advanced weapons. It does not make sense, but the transaction occurred. This is the same North Korea that received half a million tons of food from the West to feed its hungry population.

(A): But instead it used the food to feed those in the arms industry. It has a booming arms industry. It sells arms anywhere for hard cash. The it uses the money to build more arms. It's a vicious cycle.

(B): Just what exactly did they buy from North Korea?

(C): The papers said missiles. I think they are a variation of scud missiles. I don't know their range. But I imagine they will aim that at the population centers.

(A): This is high tech stuff. Do they have people who know avionics?

(C): Not that we know of. But the papers also said something like 69 North Korean officers have come to the country to operate the missiles they have sold.

(A): There's precedence for this. About a year ago the country purchased several Souyuz and Mig fighters from Russia. Russian pilots and officers were imported to operate the fighter planes. Not only that but several Russians and Eastern Europeans were also hired to operate the anti aircraft guns and the radar system.

(B): What you are telling me is that two types of wars were fought simultaneously: trench warfare ala WWI and high tech as in the Gulf War. Pretty amazing. What do we know about the student's country?

(C): Its one of the poorest of the poor. It's said, and I don't know how true, that it spent over a billion dollars on arms the past two years. This is the same country that spent on the average of $3--I mean--t-h-r-e-e dollars a year per person on health.

(B): I guess a billion dollars could make a lot of people healthy.

(C): Say it again. Surely a most distorted allocation of resources, if ever there was one. I mean from both sides.

(A): Let me ask you if you think the student is serious about the threat. Is it a form of blackmail? Or is he serious about blowing up the building.

(C): This is the hardest question to answer because I simply don't know. There are times when I think he's bluffing, and other times when I think he's dead serious.

(A): But what would he gain if he blows up the building, since he too would perish.

(C): He's playing the numbers game. He thinks there are more of "him" than "them."

(A): What would persuade him not to carry out his threat? What about if we say to him, OK we'll let you write your own questions?

(B): Then he would want to provide his own answers.

(C): And give himself a grade. And finally, a Diploma.

(A): He must know we can't do all of that. But there must be something we can do to help him save face.

(B): I think you are right; at this juncture it's about saving face.

(A): I can see us giving him more time to prepare for the exam. May be postponing the exam by three months or so. This will be our concession. I mean a procedural concession without giving in on the substance of his demand.

(C): I think he wants more than procedural concession. He wants us to give in to his demand. He wants to pass himself.

(A): That's unheard of. We simply can't allow it. I know we are facing a deranged student. But we must strike a resounding blow for academic integrity.

(B): Does it have to be either or? Isn't there something we can do? Perhaps meeting him half way. I was thinking perhaps we could allow some control over the questions and answers.

(C): Interesting. Could you amplify?

(B): Let us say there are seven questions that must be answered. We give the student three questions and the teacher three.

(C): And the seventh question?

(B): I have thought of that, too. You let each side write each half of the question.

(C): I guess you call this splitting the difference.

(A): One problem. What make you fellows think the student won't demand next year that he be allowed to write three out of four exam questions? Or other students who have heard of the preferential treatment won't ask of similar privilege? I mean where do you draw the line?

(C): I see the potential problem of ceding control to the student. After all there are rules we have to go by. I think procedural concession may be some can live with. We can postpone the exam. We can even give the student choice of the form of questions.

(B): What do you mean by the form of questions?

(C): I mean the student can chose among Essay Questions, True and False, Multiple Questions, or even an option for an Oral Exam. This would be the type of concessions I would prefer in addition to postponement. But the evaluation of the answers rests with the teacher. This is non-negotiable.

(A): What if the student rejects our proposal?

(C): What do security forces do, if a gun wielding mad man is in a house, threatening to blow up everybody in sight?

(A): The first think they do is cut utilities. Then they prevent outside delivery of food supplies. They continue to talk to the man inside to persuade him to drop his gun and turn himself in. It's a waiting game. But sooner or later, without utilities, the man can not last. And without supplies from outside, he can't last long.

(C): So your recommendation is that we make some procedural concessions. If that's not enough then we move on to cut utilities, and prevent supplies from going in. Very interesting. I never thought about it in those terms.

(A): Last question: What does "Aggression Must Not Rewarded" mean?

(B): I think finally I know what the terms means. I think what it means is that the student feels aggrieved by something that happened to him in the past. He's holding a grudge that must be rectified. I am not saying he was a victim but the thing is he feels he is a victim.

(A): So what you are implying is that he believes the world owes him something?

(B): Yes. When you combine grudge with perceived victim-hood, logic goes out of he window. That's the situation we have here. He's mad at the world because the world abandoned his country 65 years ago. He expects the West to accede to his demand to salve its conscience of what it failed to do then. And someone has to pay for Barba's sins. This is pay up time. On its merit his case is weak, but he feels the world owes him something. In victim-hood there's no such thing as a statue of limitation. It goes on forever.

(C): I could not have put it any better.

(B): But I have learned a lot from you; I listened to you carefully.

(A): So our recommendation to the School Board is that some procedural concession may be advisable. The School may wish to give the student more time to prepare for the exam, or even a choice on the type of exams. But grading and evaluation rest solely in the hands of the teacher. On this the school must make its stand.

(C): I agree

(B): So do I

____________
Tekie