OPEN TESTIMONIALS
By J. H. SHACICLETON BAILEY
FEW people can have to write more open testimonials during the course of a year than heads of colleges and schools. Nearly every member of their staffs will ask for one at some time or other, and their scholars on leaving do so almost without exception.
In perhaps as much as 90 per cent. of these cases no real difficulty presents itself when the framing of an open testi- monial has to be undertaken: it is in dealing with the other ten per cent. when some suppressio yeti is practically obliga- tory if the testimonal is to have any value for the purpose for which it was requested, that the problem arises "should the Doctor tell?" Those who consider that to this question the answer should be "certainly not," would urge that an open testimonial is neither a critique like the review of a book, nor a report such as might be sent to a parent, and that no one wit - any experience in this matter would ever dream of regarding it as such.
Anything disparaging, they would hold, is therefore out of place in an open testimonial, unless introduced artistically with a view to make what has been written eulogistically appear to have been set down with rigid impartiality. It is also contended that practically all prospective employers, or others who will receive printed or typewritten copies of such testimonials, are so perfectly acquainted with the technique of their composition that actually no harm can result from them not setting forth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. For instance, if in an open testimonial given to a member of his staff a headmaster makes no reference to the discipline the teacher has been able to maintain in his classes, the headmaster, who in nearly every case will be the recipient of such a testimonial, will at once notice the omission and the inevitable conclusion to be drawn from it. Thus in practice there is, it is contended, no real deception, especially when it is remembered that it is always possible to com- municate privately with the original composer on any point where further enlightenment is deemed to be necessary.
Many, however, will take the view, whether or no they have in practice always acted up to it, that in no case can the deliberate suppression of some vital fact of an important though unpleasant nature be justified. The plea that this is being done on humanitarian grounds to give some black sheep a possible chance of rehabilitation, or that charity ought in this way to cover a multitude of sins, is valueless in such a case for the plain and sufficient reason that no one has a right to be charitable at the expense of a third party. Hence it is not justifiable to write glowingly of a man's scholarship and of his ability to impart it to others, while concealing the fact that he appeared to find most of his problems soluble in alcohol. Neither is it fair to expatiate on the powers of organisation and discipline possessed by another individual who is known to have the drawback of being absolutely untrustworthy where money is concerned. Again, in the case of a pupil distinguished in work or games, or maybe in both, can it be honourable to suppress the fact that, but a short time before requesting a testimonial, he had been guilty of some gross moral delinquency for which he had only very narrowly escaped expulsion?
Opinions, therefore, differ : but the net result of a good deal of present practice has been to make open testimonials of very little value indeed. This means, incidentally, the infliction of a very real hardship on those who have merited every word of commendation written about them without reservation since there was no skeleton in their cupboard about which a discreet reticence had to be observed by one who was as well aware of it as the unhappy owner himself.
This question of misleading open testimonials—there can be no possible excuse set up for a private and confidential one of this description—is no doubt one which gives rise to a certain amount of criticism and heartburning in every walk of life. The writer has chosen to confine himself to a field in which he had over a quarter of a century's experience as a headmaster. The conclusion which this has forced upon him is that, in cases where some material fact of a very derogatory nature is known to exist, the open testi- monial should be no more than a simple factual record containing neither praise nor censure. Shop window dressing by a tradesman who knows well that the goods within his establishment do not come up to the standard of those in the window, and in certain respects are definitely far below it, is rightly held to betoken a low standard of com- mercial morality. Hence, even if no question of private profit be involved, and even if custom has sanctioned what may be euphemistically described as broadmindedness in the composition of open testimonials, those who should be amongst the foremost in setting an example in matters of honesty can hardly be content to conform to any standard which is not of the highest in this respect.
Previous page
