School bans 'best friends' in the name of inclusion

Bearing speaks of a school that bans the term, 'best friend'.  It goes against the ethos of 'inclusion' and 'diversity'.  It is supposed to lead to social ostracism and exclusion, as well as cliquiness.



But are diversity and inclusion necessarily good?  Like I say, it is no fun being left out.  For instance, Bearing aruges that 'chain gangs' and 'death cults' are also 'inclusive' because everyone is *forced* to work, join in or congregate together.  I could put church sermons and school assemblies in the same category, mainly because I haven't always been too fussed about them, but they are certainly nowhere nearly as bad as the former.



Bearing further argues that cliques and friendships form as children form different alliances and interests, and learn to read certain social cues, like whether or not the others want to talk to them or include them in their games and conversations. You can't force people to like each other - you can try, but alot of the time, it doesn't always work.  People are going to gravitate towards others who have more in common with them.  It's only natural.

I don't see anything wrong with having a 'best friend' or even using the term 'best friend', though I also believe it is good to have a variety of friends and to broaden your horizons.  That way, you don't just over-rely on a single group or individual. 



I used to have certain 'best friends' myself, until I found that sometimes they tend to be 'hangers-on', often because I would take them under my wing due to feeling 'sorry' for them.  That can lead to 'enmeshment' (i.e. a lack of boundaries) between oneself and the other person. 



Hence, I was their 'Patsy', so to speak: they would come to me about their problems, 'piss in my pocket' (ie butter me up), want me to do certain favours for them, and generally depend upon me.  In other words, they are not really so much my best friend as my *PEST FRIEND*.  And me, being the compassionate person that I am, complies.



That is not very healthy (so maybe some teachers have a point).



But to ban the term, 'Best Friend', is punitive, to say the very least.  You can't talk to everyone or listen to everyone at once.  You can't invite everyone to your birthday party, your wedding or (even) your funeral - you simply can't afford it.  You can't go to everyone's party, because there is not enough time available.  You can't afford to employ everyone and accommodate every whim as there are not always enough positions or resources to go around.



You have to decide which friends or relatives are worth inviting, which invitations or offers are worth taking up, how much time or energy is available to devote to people, and how many people you can pay attention to (and communicate with) at once.



And on the same token, you can't put all your eggs in one basket - so having a 'best friend' that drains your resources, time, money etc is not practical.



Hence there needs to be some nuance between having a single best friend, and including other people.  And that is my viewpoint.



cheers,

Night Owl