Michael Smith

Michael Smith's Post

Michael Smith

I made a quick video yesterday as I left my neighborhood and witnessed an “ICE Out Walkout” from one of the local schools. At first, I assumed it was the high school, but later I learned it was a middle school—these were eighth graders, 13- and 14-year-olds, who had decided to walk out of class in protest, signs in hand.

When I thought they were high schoolers (closer to college or employment), I posed a simple question: if you were hiring for your own business—or as an executive making decisions on behalf of a company—would knowing that a candidate had walked out of school in protest factor into your hiring decision?

The overwhelming majority of responses were yes, it would. I agreed, it would make difference to me.

There were a few who applauded the students. One pro-protest commenter wrote: “I would hire them in a heartbeat. Because they understand that protecting their community is more valuable than whether something is technically a minor civil crime.”

Setting aside the fact that there is no such thing as a “minor civil crime”—the sentiment is revealing. The commenter framed the issue as moral courage versus technical legality. In her view, the students were elevating community protection over bureaucratic rule-following.

I responded with what I thought was a reasonable challenge: “This is certainly an interesting and mostly magnanimous comment. But how would you feel if it was your business and that particular person was siphoning money out of your company and giving it to someone else because she thought they needed it? I wonder how you would feel about it then, because in citizenship terms that’s exactly what is happening.”

I never received a reply. Perhaps the volume of disagreement discouraged further engagement. The exchange did, however, illuminate a larger issue.

Shortly afterward, I read about a city council member who had publicly defended an illegal immigrant in glowing, almost hagiographic terms—only to discover later that the individual was a violent fentanyl dealer. This is not the first time such a narrative has collapsed under scrutiny…and a bit of time. We have seen similar cases where individuals described as “model fathers,” “beloved community members,” or “hardworking asylum seekers” were later revealed to have serious criminal records either here or abroad.

None of this means every illegal immigrant is a convicted sex-trafficker. That would be both false and unserious, but it does expose a troubling pattern: reflexive defense without due diligence. Advocacy that precedes verification where emotion outruns fact.

Rudyard Kipling captured this human tendency in The Gods of the Copybook Headings: “As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn, / The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return… the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire.”

Defenders of illegal immigration keep repeating the same mistakes. A sympathetic narrative emerges. Public officials or activists rush to defend. Facts surface later and we are stuck in a cycle of lather, rinse, repeat.

What struck me most is the mindset required to sustain this pattern, because to defend first and inquire later requires a kind of moral romanticism, a belief that good intentions insulate you from bad outcomes. It is not unlike a child’s belief in Santa Claus: the world is divided into the good and the bad, and we instinctively know which is which. The need to believe is so strong that facts don’t matter and verification seems almost impolite.

But neither governance nor hiring decisions operate on fairy tales. They operate on information, questions, accountability, and above all, answers.

When eighth graders walk out of class, they are not simply expressing a view. They are practicing a habit: that personal conviction justifies institutional disruption. Some will grow out of it. Some will mature into thoughtful citizens who understand both rights and responsibilities but if adults cheer the disruption without teaching the corresponding obligation to respect process, they are reinforcing a dangerous asymmetry.

Civil society depends on a shared understanding that laws matter—even when we dislike them—and that changing them requires persuasion, not performance. If “protecting the community” becomes a blanket justification for ignoring legal structures, then everyone becomes the sole arbiter of what is just. At that point, we no longer have law, we have competing moral tribes. The more troubling question is not whether an employer would consider a walkout in a hiring decision, it is whether the adults encouraging these gestures have considered the long-term lesson being taught: that virtue is measured by defiance, not discernment.

Responsible adults, especially educated ones, have an obligation to be curious before they are compassionate, to verify before they amplify. Failing to do so is not moral courage, it is willful naiveté dressed up as virtue.

May be an image of text that says 'The Santa Syndrome: Compassion Without Curiosity Reflexive defenses, selective facts, and the lesson the next generation is being taught about law, responsibility, and consequences. Unlicensed Punditry MICHAELSMITH .SUBSTACK.COM'

All reactions:

442 comments

1.1K shares

Comment

Most relevant

Linda Laree Dietz

Long ago, someone coined the phrase, “Misplaced compassion; unintended consequences.” It still holds true.

147

View 1 reply

Robert Beda

Never in the past 120 years has a youth-led political movement resisting violent oppression by powerful institutions been on the wrong side of history.

View all 10 replies

Ed Verner

That virtue is measured by defiance, not discernment - brilliant phrase well done

View 1 reply

Patricia Sledge Altringer

Well said but in the case of the 8th graders, could it be they walked out to protest just to get outside and out of the classroom for a little 'field trip?'

View all 7 replies

Steve Baum

You always seem to have well -thought out commentary on current events. Often lengthy…which means challenging for our instant gratification culture. But, If people are willing to read, perhaps they will have a better understanding of the knee-jerk reactions by those on the “regressive left” around us. Appreciate the critical thinking…and the common sense articulation.

View 1 reply

Diane Sarandos Eggers

When I was an Air Force officer, I was selected to sit on numerous court martial panels (jury duty). The very first case was a sergeant that stole money from his squadron to help his church. He bought supplies to help make necessary repairs to his church. Stealing is stealing.

Linda Beck Huffman

Critical Thinking which includes the kinds of questions you asked is a rare commodity today. It’s easier to be taught what to think than to take the time to learn how to think. Sadly, this is the world in which we now live.

Top fan

Gary Buckley

Terrific insight, as usual. And, as usual, it will reach only those who have thought this out and those who need this will ignore it or scoff. Sad. But please keep on! Better to light one candle…

View 1 reply

June June

Really great analysis. As we have become a more secular culture of two-income &/or single-parent families, many exhausted parents have outsourced moral guidance to schools, teachers &, unintentionally tv & social media/influencers. This outsourcing along with the decrease in active church involvement & the push for everyone to attend college has created a culture of teens & young adults who are searching for meaning & moral clarity & who are open vessels ripe for "moral" indoctrination. Add to this, the belief that the more education you've had or the more degrees you hold equals greater intelligence & moral superiority & the reticence to admit when you get it wrong...& you have the perfect storm.

103

View all 2 replies

Karen H Turner

This hits to the hard truth of being proactive or reactive and the motive behind that decision. Reactive responses are purely emotional, in the moment, no thought, no plan, and no accountability for actions. Proactive responses take thought, planning, evaluating risks, and thinking about results of taking an action before engaging. I love your thought provoking writing.