When is it OK for a speaker to upbraid an audience? A frequent reader of this blog sent me this link to a fascinating example of a speaker dressing down his audience.

In this case, does the attitude the speaker evinces seem more palatable because the speaker is a grown up addressing teens? What exactly are the limits of speaker attitude toward the audience?

Clearly, in this case, the speaker believes that he is, at least temporarily, in loco parentis to the children in front of them, and hence has given himself permission to lecture them in no uncertain terms for their correction.

And in that case, when a teacher or authority figure has charge of a group of children, then verbally criticizing them is surely permitted if the conditions warrant it. If the children have behaved badly, perhaps, or broken a set of rules.

What about adults? Is the head of an organization allowed to upbraid his or her employees? Is it a good idea?

And then what about the case of a speaker in front of an audience of the general public? Is a politician, for example, allowed to dress down the general public for some transgression?

We need to beware of knee-jerk opinions in either direction. Parents are quick to defend their children and quick to anger if they feel that their children are being punished (and the parents themselves aren’t doing it). For many parents, no harsh words are allowed to insult the ears of their little angels, lest they be permanently traumatized and unable to move forward in life toward the station their zip code appears to entitle them to.

But, on the other hand, our idea of authority has changed. We’re more cynical now, and less tolerant of giving a free rein to authority-figure overreach. Too many authorities have misbehaved too often for us to accept their words as law any longer.

In short, it’s a fluid thing and mores are changing. We have to be sensitive to the particulars of a situation.

But I am inspired by this clip to make a distinction. I want to maintain the need for authority figures to lecture children, within the bounds of decency, certainly, when those children break the rules in some way.

And the parallel occasion, when a boss feels the need to dress down a group of employees, if the situation warrants it, then the tone can get harsh and the attitude punitive. But if the behavior of the boss goes over the line into abuse, then, just as with the children’s caretakers, the boss needs to be punished. And employees have a freedom, ultimately, that children don’t have: they give their employment provisionally to the organization and can withdraw it if they don’t like the way they are being treated – and should. The provisional nature of the relationship should curtail any tendency of a boss to be too abusive.

The most difficult case to draw clear lines around is the case of a speaker in front of an audience of the general public. In that case, there is neither temporary authority nor an in-loco-parentis status conferred. And so in that case, tact and the current standards of decency and public discourse have to prevail. (We might wonder, at least in the United States during this political season, if those standards have any substance to them anymore, but that’s for another day and another post.) There is no inherent right for a speaker to dress down, especially in the emotional terms of our example, an audience that is present simply as part of the general public.

I would go further and note that the temporary authority granted to a speaker by the audience and the occasion carries with it the responsibility to be honest and also restrained. It’s not a bully pulpit. It’s a temporary gift, and the speaker should respect the audience’s kindness in bestowing that gift, and not abuse that audience.