Hot on the heals of the mindless love of rules in the face of reason in the Austin school district comes this little gem via Houston criminal defense lawyer Mark Bennett, the Texas Tornado.
When Gale Ladehoff, principal of the Clear Horizons Early College High School in the Clear Creek Independent School District (and Official Woman), assigned a student to Saturday school because of excessive absences, she may not have known that the absences were due to a medical condition. She may not have known that this unwarranted discipline would cause the family logistical difficulties.
But rules are rules. This subject of the all-mighty principal, Houston family lawyer Ron of Ron’s Insanity, decided not to suffer in silence, but to tell the tale of his meeting with the principal.
[Principal Gale Ladehoff] says that “rules” must be enforced. I, in my usual tactful and discerning manner, tell her that this is simply asinine. She obviously has no appreciation of my attitude. While there was no real attempt by her to dialog, things really break down when I tell her that i don’t give a damn about her rules.
She tells me the meeting is over. I’m standing there dumbfounded. “You’re stopping the meeting because I disagree with you?” I ask. Apparently once a tyrant declares that the meeting is over, you suddenly become persona non grata and become subject to forced removal. Her associate asks, “should I call security?” My sarcastic response to her was, “oh yes, call security, because I’m obviously a threat.”
We are all necessarily involved with petty bureaucrats from time to time, and we all enjoy similar experiences. Bennett links to my “Official Woman” post whenever he comes up with one of these stories, because of its commonality and its sober tactic of dealing with them by feigning devotion and understanding that they live and die by their checklists. But when your child is the victim of the Official Woman’s wrath, it may be too hard to bite your tongue and pretend to grovel at her feet.
We really have a serious problem in this country, with women like Gale Ladehoff, grocery clerks of great self-importance with just enough power over a very small but critical aspect of our lives to cause harm. The problem is that the Gale Ladehoffs not only don’t comprehend how or why their actions are pathologically dangerous, but reflexively become more deeply entrenched as their power is challenged. They are incapable of admitting error, because by definition their decision is right in the most absolute sense.
But there is another aspect to this phenomenon, one that is equally insidious. These dangerous and ignorant Official Women are enabled by those who believe that they are truly entitled to flex their muscle, and that everyone else is obliged to bow to them. This includes their superiors, usually Official Women in their own right, but also others who have come to not merely accept the rule of petty tyrants, but in a variation on the Stockholm Syndrome, support their authority no matter how offensive or wrong they may be.
Take, for example, this comment to Bennett’s post:
Just one other thing, though: in the future, Ron should watch his tone and manner. If I had been the principal and had – for whatever reason – closed the meeting and he failed to leave, especially after expressing anger like that (however justified his feelings were [IMHO] in that case), I would have called the police too.
Once Ron insisted on staying where he was – rightly or wrongly – no longer welcome, he was trespassing. Not only was he breaking the law in one way, but his tone and manner could give reasonable people the impression that he might soon break it in other ways too.
Aside from the fact that the commenter has recast the story to make Ron the criminal, it demonstrates a bizarre obsequiousness that suggests that anyone challenging the Official Woman gets what he deserves. If the Official Woman gives commands, and her subjects must obey. If they fail to obey, then they are wrong and deserve what they get.
I’ve enjoyed the company of many an Official Woman. There are a lot of them. They can be found anywhere there’s a little bit of power to be flexed. Some are petty annoyances. Some are dangerous. Some can do real harm to children, like Gale Ladehoff, and make families quite miserable. While Ron’s approach was doomed, having no chance of moving the Official Woman away from her checklist of rules, it was a strategic error only. I can’t fault Ron for becoming irate under such Kafkaesque circumstances.
But I think we need to create a new category for the enablers of Official Women. Without them, the Official Woman would be just another petty tyrant. As Mr. Bennett says, notwithstanding the echo of John Wilkes Booth, sic semper tyrannis.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thank you for drawing attention to my struggle. The past couple of days, the personal nature of my fight have really drained a lot of my physical and emotional energy. It’s really amazing the difference between fighting for someone else and fighting for your family.
If you were a woman, I’d send you flowers. Let me know if you like beer, wine, or some other vice and I’ll forward that to you.
As the author of the snippet you quoted out of context, I take serious offense.
I specifically said in that same comment that – assuming Ron has told us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth – Ms. Ladehoff should be seriously considered for a written reprimand, suspension and/or demotion.
What would I have to recommend in order not to be considered her “enabler”? Instant firing, presumably with no due process (for Ms. Ladehoff, that is)?
As for Ron’s behavior, the fact is that, by his own account, he did something which is forbidden by law in pretty much every halfway civilized jurisdiction in the world: trespassing. Trespassing is a violation, in this case, of the school district’s property rights, and Ms. Ladehoff as occupant of that office (and principal of the entire school) was the district’s authorized agent with regard to that space.
If I walked into a restaurant wearing a McCain ’08 pin, and the manager asks me to leave because he’s a fervid Obama supporter, indeed his decision is unfair and unjust – in my opinion and presumably yours too. But obviously he didn’t think so, and it’s his ball, his court and hence his rules.
As soon as he asks me to leave, I need to do exactly one thing immediately: make tracks for the door. If I’m still standing there, let alone continuing to argue with him, I am a criminal, the police can be called and I might even end up in jail and pay a fine. Simple as that.
(And what could I expect to accomplish by standing there and continuing to argue with someone who obviously refuses to hear anything further from me?)
Suppose afterwards I want to encourage my acquaintances to take their business elsewhere. I’ll get a lot further in proving he’s a jerk by showing how I respected his (and the owner’s) rights. If on the other hand, I break the law and become the criminal, people aren’t going to sympathize with me. After all, if I failed to show elementary respect for society’s most basic rules, why should others believe that I did nothing more to begin with than display my political views?
Given the post-Columbine climate, people everywhere are extremely sensitive to the spectre of violence in schools. If an angry person, let alone one who was (however understandably) upset as Ron was, insisted on staying in my office (not to mention my immediate presence) after being asked to leave, I certainly would be worried. He’s already broken the law; what other laws (eg, destruction of property, criminal mischief, disorderly conduct, assault, etc) might he also break? Do I want to find out the hard way?
As I said, Ms. Ladehoff’s conduct was outrageous, and I know from experience that some, perhaps many, of her opposite numbers elsewhere have serious problems in how they treat people. But two wrongs, let alone a crime in response to unfairness, don’t make a right.
And worst of all, they muddy the waters. Only folks like Ms. Ladehoff benefit.
Jeff Deutsch
Hi Ron,
I see you posted right before I did.
I just want to let you know that I am on your side. I wish you and your son all the best. I certainly hope that the incident in Ms. Ladehoff’s office hasn’t set back your quest for justice for him.
Good Luck!
Jeff Deutsch
No thanks needed. I’m happy to raise awareness wherever possible.
Particularly galling, Jeffrey, was your need to qualify at Mark’s blog, and again here, by saying “assuming Ron has told us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.” What would possibly give you reason to raise this once, no less twice? Has Ron ever lied to you? Has anyone ever suggested that Ron was anything other than a man of utmost integrity? And who are you, without any reason in the world whatsover, to even raise this question?
You didn’t have to “recommend” anything. You didn’t have to post a comment at all. You chose to take the path of arguing that people should pray at the feet of the official woman. And that’s why your comment made it into my post. I was offended by it.
Hello Mr. Greenfield,
You may know Ron personally; I do not, any more than I know Ms. Ladehoff. I do not know about their respective levels of integrity. I am sure that a true champion of due process and fairness, like you seem to me to be, understands the dangers of going off half-cocked based on one side of the story.
Also, I take it that the only acceptable responses are either completely and totally agreeing with you and Ron that Ms. Ladehoff is 100% guilty and should presumably be fired immediately, and that Ron’s response had no issues whatsoever, or keeping my mouth shut?
You and Ron, as lawyers, know darned well how few conflicts involve one completely guilty party and one completely blameless one. They exist, but far more often while one party is much more guilty s/he has some right on his/her side, and the other party is basically correct but still made some contribution to the problem.
Cheers,
Jeff Deutsch
To question Ron’s statement of facts, without any basis to do so, suggests your problem. You assume that the person could be deceptive, despite the absence of any reason to do so. I neither assume facts nor impute motives for which no basis exists. The story could be wrong, but absent a reason to think so, there would be absolutely no reason to raise any question whatsoever.
As for acceptable responses, your personal attitude toward authority is precisely what these posts are against. The fact that your vision of the world is that people should obey anyone in an official position or suffer adverse consequences is fundamentally wrong, and I’ve written this post to make this very point. Does this clarify things for you?
“If I walked into a restaurant wearing a McCain ’08 pin, and the manager asks me to leave because he’s a fervid Obama supporter, indeed his decision is unfair and unjust – in my opinion and presumably yours too. But obviously he didn’t think so, and it’s his ball, his court and hence his rules.”
This analogy is completely flawed. A restaurant is private property. A public school is not.
Thanks for pointing that out. I sometimes get bored with lengthy comments and never make it past the first paragraph.
I am Currently a Student at Clear Horizons Early College High School ! She was an Assistent Pricipal and she is screaming at me one time and she is very cold hearted and assulted the kid ! I would have sued her !
Teacher Du Jour: Wendy Portillo of Port St. Lucie, FL
In keeping with our
Unfortunately, Ms. Ladehoff is my principal at Clear Horizons Early College High School. I am not at all surprised to see her do that to a student. She is beyond the rudest woman I have EVER even spoken to, let alone school official! I most definitely plan on e-mailing this blog link to all the students I know- which most highly dislike and have no respect for Ms. Ladehoff because of her horrid attitude. Thank you for the post, I am so happy to see some dirt on this lady. I can not wait to let my fellow peers hear this, after all, shouldn’t us students know about our principals?
I am a student at Clear Horizons. I never see Mrs. Ladehoff. I dont know when this was published but I do hope the matter has been fixed, because after all this may be one of my fellow classmates.
I hope all went well with the students health & this case.