The Roldán case and the limits of the system
The case of Miquel Roldán has placed the educational system in front of a conflict as delicate as it is difficult to resolve. The teacher, convicted of harassing a minor, returned to practice after serving the sentence imposed by Justice. And it is precisely in this fact where the contradiction appears that today shakes a public school in Palma, worries families and leaves the Ministry of Education with no room for maneuver. Legally, Roldán can return to teaching and be the tutor of the group of children assigned to him. Socially, a significant part of the educational community considers it incomprehensible that this is possible.
It is difficult to understand that at this point it has not yet been foreseen that a person convicted of harassing minors cannot work with minors again. The debate is not legally simple because the right to reintegration and the very idea that a sentence cannot be perpetual come into play. But the case highlights a legal loophole that the State itself has already admitted by announcing the review of the Comprehensive Protection Law for Children and Adolescents. The problem is that it comes too late for the educational community that is experiencing the conflict firsthand today.
The situation has put the system on the ropes because all the institutional pieces have their hands quite tied. The Ministry of Education cannot prevent the teacher from occupying the temporary position he is entitled to as a substitute. From a criminal point of view, the sentence has been served and the right to work is re-established. Nor can it act immediately with families who have decided not to take their children to school as a measure of protest. The regulations establish deadlines: until fifteen days of absence have passed, the educational center cannot activate the chronic absenteeism protocol.
But if the rules are clear, reality is much more difficult to manage. Roldán himself has not opted for a discreet profile or an attitude that helps to allay families' concerns. And these families have every right to express their fear and indignation. It would be irresponsible to underestimate them. However, the right to protest cannot also override the fundamental right to education of children, nor the obligation of minors to attend school.
It is here that the conflict takes on a particularly complex dimension. The school is caught between clashing rights, between regulations that did not foresee an exceptional situation, and between an emotional tension that no management team is prepared to handle alone. The case demonstrates that it is not enough to correct the legal loophole. We must also assume that schools need tools, clear protocols, and institutional support to face extraordinary situations that strain the entire educational community.
