591 - I Was Genderswapped and Reincarnated as a Villainess, but I’m Making this My Personal Yuri Game

Yesterday, an accident occurred during a physical education class. The student who fell from the balance beam was immediately taken to the hospital by ambulance, but thankfully, there were no major injuries. There might be a diagnosis indicating a full recovery in a few weeks or months, but in reality, the term 'full recovery' isn't as daunting as it sounds. For instance, even a minor scrape can result in a diagnosis of 'full recovery in one week.' Within five minutes, the bleeding stops, and a scab forms; in two or three days, the scab falls off, healing such a minor injury, yet it might still be diagnosed as a one or two-week recovery. This is because 'full recovery' implies that the injury or pain has completely healed. Even if bleeding stops in five minutes and the scab falls off in two days, a scar might remain. Only when such marks disappear entirely can we say it’s completely healed. As long as the person says their skin is tight and hard to move due to the wound, it's not considered 'fully healed.' External injuries like these are relatively easy to diagnose, but with invisible injuries like whiplash or sprains, as long as the person keeps claiming pain, it's not considered 'fully healed.' While there might be a standard of considering these injuries healed if no abnormalities are observed, if the injured keep complaining about the pain, it can be said it's not fully healed. Some exploit this, claiming whiplash or leg pain from traffic accidents, endlessly demanding money from the other party. In fact, I had a classmate in my past life who continuously demanded money that way, alleging pain prevented them from working. Naturally, insurance companies are accustomed to handling such individuals. They accommodate the complaints to an extent as unavoidable necessary expenses, but they won’t keep making payments to individuals who demand beyond reasonable compensation for the injury. That aside, though the two students practicing the obstacle race who fell from the balance beam didn’t suffer major injuries, the accident has turned into a significant issue. Yesterday, the two who fell were taken to the hospital while others were questioned about the accident's details, leading to immediate emergency meetings. While we were sent back to attend classes as usual, the upper echelons of Touka Academy were likely in a frenzy. Today, the parents of the fallen students have come to the academy to raise a massive complaint. "Our child was injured! How is Touka Academy going to take responsibility for this?" "Uh, well, it's still under investigation..." "What do you mean, 'under investigation'?" "I, I’m really sorry!" The person currently shouting is the mother of the child who ended up beneath the other when they fell. A first-year girl fell from the balance beam. The child whose mother is yelling is named Inada Kaitoka. The main family name of the Inada is unclear, and their origin is not well known. They might have some lineage stories among themselves, but to outsiders, they remain unknown. The other student who fell is Matsumoto Fuki. I know her. The Matsumoto family serves the Kujou family and is somewhat related to me. The Inada family serves the Nijou family, and although both families hold lower positions, they are internal students, so the academy must be facing dire consequences with two of them injured in an accident. And as for why I am present at the scene where the parents of Inada are furious... It's because the academy's responsible parties, those involved at the time, and student council members have been assembled. The Inada family seems to have also gathered other allied families along with the Matsumoto family to protest. I was allowed to attend and listen to both parties. Listening to the explanations, I can somewhat understand the Inada family's anger. Apparently, the academy had expressed concerns about the dangers of a two-person borrowing race and a two-person obstacle race. Nonetheless, the student council wanted to incorporate new events, and convinced the academy by emphasizing safety. The problem was that their actual safety measures were ineffective. Whoever sees two people tied together walking on a balance beam wouldn't find it safe. Even just running in a three-legged race is risky enough; asking them to cross a balance beam in that state is something that shouldn't be attempted by the many students at Touka Academy, who generally have poor athletic skills and test below average in sports. Even those with good athletic skills would find it dangerous. So, expecting young ladies, who don’t engage in much physical activity, to perform such a task safely was never feasible. As a safety measure, a safety mat should have been placed beside the balance beams to ensure protection in case of a fall.... However, on the actual day, no such mats were prepared, and Inada Kaitoka ended up spraining her ankle. Fortunately, it wasn't a great height, so while ending up beneath Fuki, she didn't sustain fractures or anything severe. There seemed to be a few bruises, but the injuries were limited to scrapes, bruises, and a sprain. However, the fact that the injuries were minor this time does not make it acceptable. The academy’s heads like the principal had approved the event because they were told, through meetings and paperwork, that "safety would be ensured using safety mats." The physical education teacher in charge at the time had instructed the students to place safety mats on both sides of the balance beam, but had left without confirming that the students had set them up properly, distracted by supervising other students' practice. The participating students had been told to prepare safety mats but decided the mats were too heavy and troublesome to carry over for what they considered a manageable height, so they didn’t prepare them. This sequence of events is how the accident happened, and indeed, it’s a classic example of accident causality. No matter how meticulous and comprehensive the safety manuals are, they serve no purpose if not properly implemented. And the more disconnected these safety protocols are from the actual situation on the ground, the less likely they are to be put into practice. When those unfamiliar with on-the-ground realities devise theoretical safety measures, it becomes unreasonable to expect adherence. It's one thing if people ignore them out of laziness, but there are often safety measures that aren't realistically feasible in the work environment that are still outlined. In such situations, adhering without deviation might render work impossible. Thus, individuals often conclude that they have no choice but to forego some safety procedures to get work done. And when this mindset prevails, accidents inevitably occur. When accidents occur, those in charge are held accountable, resulting in a standard response of "Ensuring thorough safety measures to prevent future occurrences." This often leads to the development of stringent safety protocols that are either impracticable or overly restrictive, preventing efficient work. Consequently, these protocols end up being ignored, creating a never-ending cycle of noncompliance. In this particular case, adhering to the planned procedures as understood by the principal and other officials would not have posed significant risks, which is why they gave their approval. The teachers, based on the plan, issued appropriate instructions. However, the students failed to follow these instructions, neglecting necessary safety measures during practice. At first glance, it might seem that the students are to blame for their own misfortune. However, the situation is more complex. The question arises: why did the supervising teacher not ensure proper oversight? And why did the authority figures, like the principal, not enforce strict compliance? These responsibilities fall on them precisely because they are rewarded with authority and appropriate compensation for managing such responsibilities. In another incident, an overseer claimed victimization, asserting that they were unjustly accused of crimes committed by a subordinate who acted independently, a narrative that painted them as a tragic figure. However, let's consider this: if a subordinate committed illegal acts using the supervisor's stamp without permission, although the supervisor may not directly face legal repercussions, can we truly say they were without fault? If a supervisor lacks basic control over their stamp, allowing documents signed with it to proceed without scrutiny, this calls into question what role they fulfilled. Responsibilities entail accountability and efficient management of subordinates, warranting the authority and extra compensation granted to them. Simply blaming subordinates for rogue actions is not acceptable; such deflection undermines the very purpose of having a management structure. Unfortunately, in many Japanese organizations, managers may become figures who merely receive high allowances without actual accountability, evading responsibility when issues arise. While managing paperwork effectively could mean avoiding direct blame for illicit actions, failing to supervise operations effectively diminishes their worth. Instead of celebrating acquittal, they should acknowledge their ineffectiveness and return their allowances, as they weren't performing any essential work. They are far from being tragic figures, merely facing the consequences of their negligence. Returning to the present issue, while the students' lack of preparation was a direct cause, it doesn't absolve the teachers and the principal from responsibility. They are accountable for failing to verify compliance and ensure adherence to safety protocols. Even though the academy is obligated to take responsibility, the demands made by the Inada family seem unrealistic. Their demands were beyond what the academy could feasibly accept. “This incident occurred! All officials of the academy must be dismissed! Fire the teachers and replace them! All school events must be canceled until thorough safety measures are in place! And since the student council proposed the new event, they must also be held accountable!” “That is…” “We cannot possibly fulfill such demands,” the principal firmly stated, while other teachers fumbled with concern. Demanding the dismissal of the entire leadership or replacing the teaching staff is excessive, as is indefinitely canceling all school events, including the anticipated sports festival. While understandable from the perspective of worried parents, and recognizing the academy will cover treatment costs without additional compensation demands from the Inada family, these demands are impractical and unreasonable. It raises suspicion of ulterior motives beyond merely protesting their child’s injury. “I understand the concern you feel as parents worrying over your injured child. However, surely these demands are beyond reason.” “This matter is unrelated to Kujou-sama! In fact, Kujou-sama might also have been at risk! Why are you siding with the academy?” When I interjected, Inada's mother hesitated briefly before rebounding with her retort. The Matsumoto family, perhaps due to their ties with the Kujou family, appeared uneasy in my presence. Since Matsumoto Fuki fell onto Inada Kaitoka, the Matsumoto family didn't seem inclined to intervene against the Inada family's stance. “Moving forward, we plan to enforce comprehensive safety measures to prevent such incidents…” “Creating meaningless measures achieves nothing!” “…” Inada's mother’s statement silenced the teachers. Her words ring true. In businesses, standard responses after incidents invoke implementing such measures, which often lead to unrealistic, theoretical protocols that don’t fit practical scenarios, resulting in non-compliance. And then another incident occurs… Subsequent incidents lead to stricter manuals, making tasks difficult or impractical, leading workers to sidestep these manuals altogether. While Inada's mother is right that “comprehensive safety measures” contribute nothing, her demands like firing all responsible parties and replacing teachers are equally unrealistic. Her perspective, like the measures she criticizes, fails to account for practical realities. “Dissolve the student council! Cancel the sports festival! Reevaluation of events! Fire the officials and teachers! We can’t retreat without at least this much!” “Well…” “…” The teachers exchanged troubled looks, indicating the discussions with the Inada side were going nowhere. If unresolved, the sports festival could indeed be canceled, and some teachers might lose their positions. Resolving the Matsumoto side isn't too difficult. Fortunately or not, Matsumoto Fuki wasn't significantly injured; her fall was largely due to being tied to Inada Kaitoka, who tumbled first, pulling Fuki down atop her. With their legs tied, pulling the other down is inevitable if the partner falls first. The Matsumoto family, being retainers of the Kujou family, could be easily appeased with Kujou's influence. Similarly, the Inada family, as retainers of the Nijou family, could be managed by bringing the issue to Nijou's attention. However, such measures wouldn’t address the root of the problem. I can understand Inada mother's perspective to some extent. Her complaints aren’t entirely unfounded, which complicates matters. Unfortunately, she isn't willing to listen to reason, and the other parents she brought along seem whipped into a collective hysteria. Likely, they've been stirred up with remarks like, "Your child might get hurt too." Forcefully suppressing the situation would only create the illusion of resolution, potentially leading to even worse outcomes. It appears my fears have, unfortunately, been realized in the worst possible way.