'Law & Order' Ponders Whether Teachers Should Be Held Liable for a Student's Actions

You know television acting jobs are scarcer than usual when recent guest stars on Law & Order are as recognizable as they’ve been lately. Two weeks ago, for instance, an L&O episode featured Ryan Eggold (New Amsterdam), Chris Bauer (The Wire), and Katee Sackhoff (Battlestar Galactica). This week’s episode brought in another New Amsterdam vet, Mike Doyle, and Rockmond Dunbar, an actor I’ve always liked since his Terriers days (although he was largely MIA from the industry for a few years due to his refusal to get vaccinated).

In this week’s episode, Dunbar played the principal of a school where a 12-year-old found a gun and used it to shoot and kill a teacher. Detective Shaw (Mehcad Brooks) felt sympathy for the student, who, like Shaw, was a foster kid who’d fallen through the cracks, but ultimately had to accept the grim reality that the kid had intentionally killed his teacher.

The more intriguing issue, however, was the prosecution’s decision to go after the principal for what amounted to essentially aiding and abetting a murder. The principal knew the student may have had a gun, but wasn’t diligent in searching the kid’s locker or person. Ultimately, the principal agreed to a plea deal for five years in prison, avoiding a possible 15-year sentence at trial.

As a viewer, I felt some sympathy for the principal. Yes, he lied about what he knew, but it didn’t seem fair that he’d serve five years for a murder a student committed. It was his testimony on the stand that swayed me:

Principal Sykes: Last year, I grabbed a student by the arm because he was beating up a teacher who’d confiscated his phone. I was hauled in for questioning, accused of child abuse, and almost arrested.

Defense Attorney: So, that’s why you didn’t search Anthony Turner?

Sykes: Exactly. I learned my lesson. I would never put my hands on a student again, no matter the circumstances.

DA: Why didn’t you call the police?

Sykes: Two months prior to the shooting, I did call 911 to help with a student who’d threatened a reading specialist. Afterward, his parents complained that I was treating him like a criminal. I had to go before the school board and explain myself. I almost lost my job and my pension. It’s a no-win situation…

DA: Who do you hold responsible for the shooting?

Sykes: I blame Anthony Turner. I know he’s had a hard life, but so have many kids. There are more than 25,000 kids in the foster system here in New York. And how many of them have gunned down their teachers in the last week? Zero.

Prosecutor: I don’t dispute that you have a challenging job, and it is admirable that you’ve dedicated your life to public service. But that doesn’t mean you can ignore your legal responsibility… Mr. Sykes. When you heard that a student might have had a gun, you chose to ignore protocol, right?

Sykes: No, I did what I thought was right under the circumstances.

Prosecutor: And that choice cost a good man his life.

In writing, I see how it’s not as clear-cut as I initially thought since he apparently did ignore protocol — and protocol exists for a reason (what can I say? Dunbar is a very sympathetic actor). Still, it’s worth asking: Where do you draw the line when it comes to holding teachers or principals responsible for the criminal actions of their students?

Or consider this scenario: In many states, guidelines prevent teachers and principals from informing parents if a student confides in them about gender identity issues, out of concern for the child’s safety if the parents are hostile to the child’s identity.

But what if a student is struggling with gender identity, depression, and suicidal thoughts? If the teacher doesn’t tell the parents and the student takes their own life, who’s responsible? It’s a heavy question, but I know from experience that this is something teachers and administrators are grappling with right now.