The teachers of Chicago want justice. At the behest of the Teachers' Union, the instructors of some 350,000 students in the windy city are banding together to get a fair contract and so they leave thousands of classrooms empty as the school year begins in earnest without them or their students. There are temporary programs set up to try to keep some kids in the classroom but, ultimately, they are not enough. There are children, often in poorer neighborhoods, who are left to their own devices at home or who accompany their parents to their work because these working people have no financial alternative other than to bring their kids along with them.
This article raises a few questions about justice and heroism. It illustrates pretty clearly that one person's or group of people's justice may amount to injustice on another front. Just as the teachers might deserve, in fairness, a better wage, so too do children deserve the education which is guaranteed to them by this nation's public school system. Because they are striking rather than teaching, the teachers are committing an injustice on their students, in a way, while at the same time fighting for a more personal justice.
That the teachers are unwilling to continue their work serving the interests of their students and the greater population over their own financial interest might indicate that their fight for justice is not only also unjust, in a sense, but lacking in any desirable heroic quality as well. If heroes are those who serve the greater interest over their own, then I would have a hard time calling the teachers on strike heroic. They seem to be acting only for themselves, and not those who need them in order to learn and prepare themselves for the life they will have to lead when they grow up.
By these same lights, though, you could argue that the greater interest of teachers at large, despite the fact that each individual teacher's interest will be served, is the goal of the strike, and so there is, in fact, heroism present here because the teachers are fighting for the collective teaching body rather than simply for themselves.
Is heroism something that can exist from one point of view but disappear from another? Is someone at once both a hero and a villain? Is there a point at which we can definitively call a person heroic or an act one of justice rather than injustice?
Even within set definitions of heroism and justice (working for the greater good and being fair, in this case), there seem to be ways to argue either way on issues involving the two concepts.