The "Fair" Teacher Paradox: How Good Intentions Can Accidentally Cause Harm
- Dr Shungu Hilda M’gadzah
- Sep 24
- 4 min read
1.0 Introduction: The Paradox of the "Fair" Teacher
We all know the archetype: the veteran teacher, respected for being “firm but fair.” They run an organized, disciplined classroom where the rules apply equally to everyone. But what if this teacher, despite their best intentions, is unknowingly causing harm?
This is the challenge presented in the case of “Mr. James.” He is a professional at what the Six Stages Framework calls Stage +1: Emerging Awareness. He firmly believes in treating all children “the same,” yet his classroom has become a place of distress for several Black and South Asian students. His story reveals several counter-intuitive truths about how bias operates and what true inclusion requires.
2.0 Takeaway 1: “Treating Everyone the Same” Can Be a Form of Bias
The belief that treating all children “the same” constitutes fairness is a common and dangerous misconception. For Mr. James, this “color-blind” approach leads him to dismiss cultural differences as irrelevant. In practice, this means his insistence on compliance, quietness, and neatness is often racially coded, enforcing a specific, culturally-bound standard of behavior while ignoring the unique identities of his students.
The impact is the opposite of his intention. Instead of feeling treated fairly, students from different backgrounds report feeling “singled out for ‘talking’ or minor infractions and missing rewards” and “misunderstood.” His attempt to create a level playing field by treating everyone as a monolith ends up alienating the very students who need to feel seen and valued for who they are. This reveals a surprising truth: fairness isn’t always sameness.
3.0 Takeaway 2: Bias Flourishes in the “Cave of Comfort”
The case study introduces the concept of the “Cave of Privilege,” and for Mr. James, this is a cave built from “The Comfort of Sameness.”
He grew up in a small, homogenous town and has lived his personal life surrounded by a mostly white, middle-class peer group. Because his own identity has always been the default in his environment, he has never been forced to reflect on his own biases. This lack of exposure directly impacts his professional practice.
His upbringing taught him that “colour-blindness = ‘good manners’,” a view reinforced by a family that avoided ‘difficult topics’ and a father who described racially minoritised people as “nice, if they keep to themselves.”
From a psychological perspective, this is a classic example of how dominant-culture norms become invisible and are perceived as the default standard—a common blind spot in professional practice that allows unexamined life experiences to perpetuate bias.
4.0 Takeaway 3: Intent Isn’t a Shield Against Impact
This central truth is key to understanding Mr. James's story. He is not a malicious actor. He is a professional whose "unexamined habits" and discomfort with difference are still profoundly harmful to the children in his care. This harm is not abstract. It plays out in daily interactions where a Black boy’s confident question is misread as ‘disrespect,’ or a Muslim girl’s need to pray is seen as a ‘disruption.’
Children in his class feel the sting of his bias through small but repeated actions: being consistently singled out, being overlooked for rewards, and having their cultural identities silenced. Good intentions do not erase negative impact.
5.0 Takeaway 4: Safeguarding Must Include Emotional and Identity Safety
The case of Mr. James forces us to expand our understanding of “safeguarding.” Traditionally focused on protecting children from physical harm, this story shows that a truly safe environment must also protect their emotional and identity-based well-being.
The subtle, often invisible, wounds of bias are a significant safeguarding concern. The non-physical risks highlighted in the case include:
• Repeated exclusion from praise
• Silencing of identity
• Unintentional racial microaggressions
This reframes inclusion not as a peripheral initiative, but as a non-negotiable component of a school's fundamental legal and moral duty of care.
6.0 Takeaway 5: The Path Forward is Coaching, Not Condemnation
When a teacher’s unintentional bias causes harm, a coaching model is more effective than a punitive one. Condemnation activates the brain's threat response, leading to defensiveness and shutting down the capacity for self-reflection.
In contrast, a coaching model provides the psychological safety required for individuals to confront their own cognitive dissonance and internalize new behaviors.
The strategies for helping Mr. James move from Stage +1 to Stage +2 focus on building awareness. Key interventions include:
• Providing a "safe reflective space" for him to explore his beliefs without judgment.
• Arranging peer observation with more inclusive colleagues to see different approaches in action.
• Using tools like reflection prompts to analyze his own patterns.
This supportive approach is crucial for creating real, sustainable change by giving professionals the support system they need to see their blind spots and develop new skills.
7.0 Conclusion: Every Story is a Mirror
The case of the “well-meaning” teacher shows that moving beyond good intentions requires more than just a desire to be fair. It demands conscious self-reflection, a commitment to understanding impact over intent, and the courage to step outside our own caves of comfort.
Because every story is a mirror. And every mirror is a chance to grow.
Ask yourself: Where do you see your own “Stage +1” behaviors, and what’s one small step you can take to move forward?
Blog
Video
Audio
TikTok
Comments