There were children of both wealthy and less wealthy parents in the class. And at another parent-teacher meeting, a conflict arose between them over new desks. An enterprising mother from the “elite” subgroup offered to buy new furniture. Several people immediately said that they could not afford it. And the old desks were just fine.
Wealthy parents stood their ground. One man offered to chip in so that all the kids weren’t deprived. It was a pretty normal amount for them. But the cheeky mothers who started it all said they wouldn’t mortgage the other kids. Say, let the children of rich parents sit at the new desks, and the rest at the old ones. The man refused to give any money at all – he was against the separation of the children.
A week later, the children of the parents who agreed to give money were sitting at the new, modern desks. The class was divided into two halves. The picture was terrible – as if a ghetto of “poor people” had formed in one side.
The boorish mothers were proud of themselves, because their children stood out from the crowd. They didn’t care about the other children, who felt, to put it mildly, uncomfortable. All of this was reminiscent of the free and paid medicine from the comedy show. However, they did not rejoice for long.
A few days later 10 new desks were brought to the school, even better than the previous ones. As it turned out, the man who opposed the separation of children was a rich businessman. He did not want to show off his wealth. He was the kind of man who did, not said. The man decided to teach a lesson to the insolent mothers who divide children into rich and poor.
The mothers were tearing and throwing up. Now they claimed that he had hurt their children’s feelings and violated equality. Was it? Why didn’t they notice how they insulted the kids from less wealthy families?
What do you think?
