On blame

When an event occurs in our world, country, state, city, or workplace that has disruptive consequences, after the situation has been responded to and stabilized, blame seems to come fast and furious. I often ask myself: what is the purpose of blame? Does it move us toward a realistic, practical solution that can be implemented, or does it generate more problems? I really don’t know.

Here is an example. If a student flips a desk and all the work is scattered across the floor, after the student is calm, what do we do? We either clean up the mess ourselves, the student cleans up the mess, or we clean it up together.

If the discussion turns to the parent’s background, the political beliefs of the staff, and the institution of the school itself, you know what happens? The flipped desk, the pile of work, the clutter—it all remains on the ground.

Yes, these discussions have their place, but they aren’t the priority in that moment. Blame blurs our vision, making everything seem equally urgent. It generates emotions that make us feel like we’ve solved something, but in reality, we haven’t moved an inch. Priorities require action—positive action that restores what is broken or damaged. Blame, meanwhile, only creates more rifts. While analysis and accountability matter in their proper time, our first responsibility is to respond, restore, and move forward.

Reader Question:- When have you seen blame delay the actual work of restoration?