When should you break the rules?

When should you break the rules?

Anybody who’s known me for a while knows I used to have significant problems with this question; my time at Norwich is a testament to that. Rebellion defined much of my adolescence. Why? I still don’t know, but for some reason, I felt I needed to do the exact opposite of what everyone else wanted me to do. In a recent conversation with my mom, she revealed that she knew I was going to be trouble when I said to her, “You know, Mom, you can’t get me to do anything you want just by giving me ice cream.” She was right. Soon after I had said those words, my attitude turned into something more like, “You know, Mom, you can’t get me to do anything… period.” For years, I wore my ‘rebellious nature’ as a badge of honor; I took pride in it. However, looking back, it’s fair to say that was generally an ineffective way of interacting with the world. In the years since, and with the help of some solid examples to follow, I’ve made progress toward a more balanced relationship with ‘the rules.’

Of course, me being me, I’ve tried to codify precisely when I should break the rules. What are the specific conditions that must be met? What are the ‘go-criteria?’ The principle I’ve settled on goes something like this: You can break the rules if following those rules will not lead to the outcome those rules are intended to produce. I’ll explain. Here are three examples.

Jesus Heals on the Sabbath Day.

One of the Ten Commandments is ‘Remember the Sabbath day, by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work…’ (Holy Bible, NIV, Ex. 20:8–11). However, in the Gospels, Jesus breaks this commandment.

(*Note. This is my first time referencing the Bible in writing; if there’s a better way to do it… let me know.)

‘On another Sabbath he went into the synagogue and was teaching, and a man was there whose right hand was shriveled. The Pharisees and the teachers of the law were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal on the Sabbath… Then Jesus said to them, “I ask you, which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to destroy it?” He looked around at them all, and then said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He did so, and his hand was completely restored’ (Holy Bible, NIV, Luke 6:6–11).

In these lines, Jesus is basically saying that you shouldn’t prioritize following the rules over doing the right thing. He knows the rules say: 'Don’t work on the Sabbath.’ But he also understands that the intent of those rules is to improve people’s lives. Not working on the Sabbath is not more important than helping someone. This point is reinforced in each Gospel, often more than once. The Ten Commandments are supposed to help people do good; if strict adherence to one of them were to achieve the opposite, that rule should be broken.

Harry Potter Risks Expulsion for His Friends.

Harry Potter and his friends Ron and Hermione are notorious rebels, but not without a cause. They seem to have an underlying understanding of what I will call the ‘dichotomy of rule-following.’ If you remember, in Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone, during the first flying lesson with Madam Hooch, a student breaks his wrist. Hooch leaves for the infirmary, instructing the rest of the class, “Leave those brooms where they are or you’ll be out of Hogwarts before you can say ‘Quidditch.’”’ But when Draco Malfoy steals Neville Longbottom’s Remembrall and flies away on his broom, Harry decides to chase after him. After a brief verbal exchange, Draco throws the Remembrall in the air and returns to the ground. As Harry dives and catches the toy, he is caught and publicly reprimanded by Professor McGonagall. Thinking he’s about to be expelled, Harry follows McGonagall into a classroom with Oliver Wood, the Gryffindor Quidditch Captain. In a reversal of fate, Professor McGonagall reveals that she thinks Harry is brilliant on a broomstick and must be the new Seeker for Gryffindor. Splendid!

If we closely examine this scene, and the many others like it in the Harry Potter series, we find that Harry is faced with a dilemma. Should he let Malfoy mistreat his friend Neville, or do the right thing and risk expulsion? I think in this situation, we should ask ourselves, why did Madam Hooch say, ‘No flying allowed’? Do you think she intended to promote tyrannical bullying? No. She was probably trying to protect her students. To keep them safe. In cases like this, we, like Harry, should break the rules.

This is one of many examples of J.K. Rowling’s immense literary talent. Though Harry is publicly admonished for breaking the rules, which he should be, his virtue is indirectly commended. This is Rowling’s way of telling readers Harry did the right thing. Her indirect approach to illustrating fundamental truths of the human condition, connects with us deeply. It is partly what makes the books so memorable for millions. Harry, like Jesus, breaks the rules when it makes sense. Or maybe I’m just way overthinking it… totally possible.

(*Note. J.K. Rowling has confessed that much of the Harry Potter series was biblically inspired. I believe this scene is an example of religious influence in her writing. Also, those of you receiving these letters come from all over the religious-or-not spectrum. I plan to establish my position on religion in an upcoming letter.)

Commander’s Intent, Trust, and the Rules Of Engagement.

A core tenet of effective military strategy is decentralized command. Frontline leaders cannot make effective time-sensitive decisions if they are constantly micromanaged by Generals watching the battle on a computer screen miles away from the fighting. How does the military solve this problem? Commander’s Intent. Commander’s Intent is basically a mission statement from leadership that explains the underlying objectives the commander is trying to achieve. This statement gives frontline troops facing tough decisions, the ability to ask themselves, “Will what I am about to do support or undermine the Commander’s Intent?”

Rules of Engagement (ROE) are a form of Commander’s Intent that dictates when Soldiers can and cannot escalate to violence. Perhaps a Soldier might face a situation in which following the ROE will endanger his team or others. If he trusts his chain of command and knows that the intent behind the ROE is to protect his men and accomplish the strategic mission, he can decide to break the ROE, without permission, when following them would not achieve those goals.

So, what do you guys think? Is, ‘You can break the rules if following those rules will not lead to the outcome those rules are intended to produce’ the right way to phrase this principle? What might be a better option? Do these examples support my claim? Is Harry Potter just a kids' story and nothing more? … and what of the Bible?

Having a set of conditions for rule-breaking has helped me reel in my rebel spirit. Of course, age is also a factor. I want to retain the capacity to break the rules when necessary, but don’t want to regress back to being a borderline criminal, haha. If anybody has any funny stories about breaking the rules, I’d love to hear them.

Okay, a couple of notes to finish this one off. First, my last letter should have been titled ‘The Combined Arms Dilemma.’ It has bothered me ever since I sent it out, and I just wanted to say that. Cool, sorted. Second, I think the three examples I wrote about today could each have been their own letter. I tried to compress them into a letter short enough that people would actually read. I am noticing that as I write more, my brain wants me to really perfect each idea. This means the drafts of these letters are getting longer but not necessarily better. Please bear with me while I try to establish a format that is interesting for you and for my brain. Thanks.

Have a good weekend.

-Ieuan