I’ve noticed since I was a kid that there are two things that make a person completely reviling, detestable, base, nasty, perverse and evil: not liking dogs and criticizing teachers.

I’m only going to comment on one of these today, as tackling both at once may result in my death or imprisonment by angry mobs of dog-loving teachers.

Why are teachers treated different than every other profession when it comes to criticism? Have you ever criticized the service at a fast-food joint and had the person you’re dining with defensively say, “You have no idea what they go through each day”, or, “How could you hate the hands that feed the nation? The hands that feed our children?” Me either. Same goes for retail workers, salesmen, contractors, business people, lawyers, accountants, even college professors – all can be legitimately criticized without social ostracism. But not K-12 teachers.

I have nothing against teachers. I have nothing against fast food workers, salesmen, or any other professional group. I have problems with problems; and if I see them, I often criticize what I think is the source – whether the individual, the system they operate in, the culture or all of the above. But why is it that criticizing movie-makers when they generate poor content is seen as a right of passage into polite society, but criticizing teachers when they do the same is inhumane?

I really don’t know. Maybe I’m alone in this experience, but I feel I’ve never met a more defensive industry than teachers. Any slightest commentary on their profession is seen as an attack that must be motivated by hatred for children (and puppies and rainbows). Not just by teachers themselves, but by nearly everyone.

Maybe it’s because there are lots of teachers, and nearly everyone is related to or knows one. Then again, nearly everyone is related to or knows someone who’s worked a fast food joint. Maybe since they are paid by taxpayers, there is a fear that widespread criticism will lead to a pay cut. Of course this is hardly the case for other government-funded positions – lawmakers, and various other bureaucrats receive round criticism in the course of everyday conversation with no violent reactions or defenses.

Maybe it’s the combination of the two factors above. Everybody personally knows, and loves, a teacher. Everyone knows that teachers are paid by taxpayers. If teachers are criticized, than they risk losing taxpayer approval and funding. Everyone thinks of that underpaid loving teacher they know, and the shudder to think of them getting a pay cut or getting fired. But even these do not seem sufficient conditions to elicit the type of hot reactions to teacher criticism that often occur. After all, if you know a teacher who is really good, why would criticism of a bad teacher be harmful? Wouldn’t it help illustrate just how good the good teacher is compared to others? Wouldn’t that make the case that they should get paid even more? Aye, here’s the rub.

In a typical job market, this may be the case. But most teachers are members of a teachers union, and they are paid as members of a group, not as individuals. Therefore, to criticize one bad teacher is to threaten the funding of all. If education loses funding schools are often unable to fire or give pay cuts to the bad teachers; they are forced to do so across the board.

The combination of everyone knowing and loving a teacher, teachers being paid by government, and teachers being mostly unable to negotiate pay on an individual basis seems a likely culprit for this fierce anti-criticism environment. This incentive structure definitely lends itself to a fear of criticism.

Or maybe I’m just vile and nasty, and opposed to everything nice. After all, I’m not a dog person.