So, does the early bird get the worm or do good things come to those who wait? We're maybe too inclined to just assert these sorts of things as fact. (This includes me.)

Someone who attributes to incompetence too regularly is one we may call a "chump" or a "sucker" and is an easy mark for charlatans of all stripes. If I don't get taken for a fool occasionally, maybe I could have a little more human faith. If I get taken for a fool all the time, I should get pissed off more.

...wait.

Of course we don't draw and quarter drunk drivers. Just because an offense does not require mens rea does not mean that we throw out all sense of proportional punishment.

Firing programmers for creating bugs (an offense without mens rea) is massively disproportionate, which is why we don't do it (at least until the severity and frequency of the bugs becomes unreasonable and other corrective options have been expended.)

It's as if we don't know that it was malicious and recognize that, just perhaps, we should ascribe incompetence first.

Drunk driving laws use strict liability, meaning that absolutely no mens rea is required to prosecute a drunk driver. Incompetence, rather than malicious intent, can be assumed but the drunk driver is nevertheless pursued and ultimately punished in a proportionate fashion.

Nobody here is suggesting that we drag these school administrators off to criminal or civil court for being spineless tyrants through incompetence. What we are suggesting is that in the "court of public opinion", their 'crime' should use strict liability. School administrators do not need to act maliciously for us to criticize them. Incompetence, without mens rea, is fair game for criticism.

Who gives a shit if they are just incompetent? I assume that they are. That does not get them off the hook.