Sam Eshagoff has provided a lot of us with the opportunity to exercise fluid thinking and the practice of capitalizing on his strengths. In the article “SAT taker-for-hire tells 60 Minutes it was easy to cheat” by Selim Alger (posted on the New York Post site), Sam directly informs the interviewer with his story on how the cheating behavior originated. He outlines the steps taken and his attitude towards the SAT system security.
From this point there is a choice in how to perceive and treat the situation and his behavior. Whatever perception on this is initiated will most likely be set into habit. Human beings make decisions and then go on. The more time that passed, the more concrete this decision and brand of thinking coupled with it becomes.
There are two sides of the fence to stay on in regards to how our perceptions of Sam’s behavior are going to live and breathe. One is the fighting brand, where we condemn what he did and try to change his mind. We push against his natural tendency to think a certain way. We stop trusting.
The other venue of thinking about this is to look for a way to build upon his path and abilities which are already established. We acknowledge his strengths and keep directing him in the direction of further aid to the rest of community. The article did mention his service of helping fellow students with academic-related affairs. I think it is part of his mandated restitution. It is the type of treatment to a behavior which utilizes society’s intelligence rather than an engagement in useless battles. This is about the choice to include a person rather than spend lots of energy towards shaming him half to death.
More of my posts which are written about useful connections with others can be seen at http://www.dpeacepublishing.com