Two eleven year old boys in the cafeteria. Eric steals John's banana.
John: Give me back my banana. Eric: Sure, I'll stick it up your ass.
John then goes and complains to the teacher on lunch duty. Who then brings the boys to the principal's office, saying that Eric threatened to sodomize John with a banana. The principal suspends Eric for "threatening to rape another student." She doesn't have much of a choice, the sexual harrassment policy dictates suspension in cases involving threatened or attempted rape.
So here's my question. Just two kids playing harmlessly? Or is are the boys learning an important lesson that rape is not something to joke about? Is the punishment in proportion to the crime?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
If it's in the rules that it's wrong, and it's never wrong to enforce the rules, and rules must be obeyed, because as a society we live by rules, then the boys must be punished because it's in the rules.
Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
Um, I think the principal just introduced the boys to a concept (sodomy) which their 11-year-old minds might not have previously conceived.
I wonder how someone is going to explain to this semi-innocent child why he is being suspended or expelled.
[ October 28, 2003, 05:46 PM: Message edited by: Sweet William ]
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
Oh, for Pete's sake. "Threatened sodomy"? It was two kids fighting over a banana. Sheesh.
This is exactly why I am philosophically opposed to zero tolerance policies. Such sets of rules mandate overreaction to what are in most cases fairly minor incidents. Kids fight. Always have, always will. You separate them and let them know that fighting is not acceptable behavior. You don't assume that they are little sex offenders (in the case at hand) or little drug dealers (in situations like the one in which an honors student was threatened with expulsion from school because she had a bottle of aspirin in her backpack) in the making.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
The only lessons learned here, I think, are (1) that justice requires human judgement in addition to rules, and (2) the school system is dumb.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Rules are great, but most of the time they are guidelines. There can always be an extenuating circumstance. If you let the rules think for you, you are letting whoever made them take responsibility for your actions.
And if this story is accurate, then that kid does not deserve to be suspended. Maybe a stern talking-to for his colorful metaphors, but accusations of "threatened rape" are way out of line.
[ October 28, 2003, 07:18 PM: Message edited by: Shigosei ]
Posted by GradStudent (Member # 5088) on :
Story is accurate. I was there when it happened.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I agree with what you were saying, but you can go too far the other way. I was beaten up about once a week (very minor, no broken bones or even major bruises, but still, beaten up) in a middle school with zero tolerance policy. Every time we would go tell the vice-princible (it was always me and one other friend who got beaten up by the same kid) and every time the vice princible would have a stern talking to with this kid and let him go. Zero tolerance can make you do some ridicilous stuff (like this story) but I'd just like to remind you that the other direction can be traversed too far as well.
Hobbes Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
Hobbes...Well of course when a particular student accumulates a history of being a bad actor, as in the case you describe, then further steps need to be taken. If the administration does not take them, then there is something wrong.
The problem with Zero Tolerance is that initial episodes are taken as trend without such a trend or tendency of behavior actually being established. Basically, what it comes out to is a One Strike and You're Out policy. No second chances, no extenuating circumstances. Problem is that most of us, being human, make mistakes and do stupid things from time to time. Except in really egregious cases, guidance and a second chance are really preferable to, "Oh, you made a mistake. You're gone."
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
The problem as I see it is that when the punishment is far more severe than the crime, kids (and adults) are much more likely to learn to resent authority than to modify their actions.
This type of approach seems to be most common among people who view anti-social behavior as an immutable defect. They see no point in trying to teach good behavior or rehabilitate criminals because they see crime as evidence that the person is inherently evil.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Of all the punishments a school can give out to children, suspension strikes me as the one that least punishes effectively and has the most negative consequences for the student involved.
'You've done something bad! Now go home!', doesn't teach anyone anything. Shouldn't the punishment fit the crime? I think so. Is falling behind in their studies going to help any child be a better student or citizen? I don't think so.
If suspension is handed out to take a destructive element out of the school, for the protection of the other children, surely there are other alternatives that will accomplish the same thing and still allow the student to be a part of the school?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Suspension only works in areas where the parents are highly supportive of the schools. Typically, the kid has to have his parents come into school in order to be reinstated. This means the kid has to go home to mom and dad and say I was suspended for X. Mom and dad then issue the real punishement. It is a way for the schools transfer the responsibility for discipline to the parents.
I have observed that in inner city schools where parents have minimal involvement with their childrens education, they nearly always use detentions rather than suspensions.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
Zero tolerance rules are just plain stupid. It's been proven time and time again.
They can cram them up their asses.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
I've got to agree with The Rabbit here. My best friend's wife recently left a teaching job in an inner city school. One of the biggest reasons was the lack of parental support when punishment was needed.
Time and time again, she would call parents and hear "Hey, when they are at school, they are your problem." Or worse yet, "What did you do to my kid?"
Another friend, in the same school as a music teacher, left after being threatened by a student. When the teacher went to the principal to ask for help, the principal asked, "Do you have a gun? You might want to keep it in your car."
Zero tolerance isn't the way, but what would work? Corporal punishment?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
“Zero tolerance” is a typical overreaction to the pet issue of the day. If schools aren’t punishing bullies enough, then the school board announces zero tolerance of bullying. Which means someone has to come up with an explicit definition of bullying. Since most explicit rules are both under- and over-inclusive, you end up over-punishing relatively innocent kids and allowing true bullies to prosper by being more creative in their bullying than officials were in their rule-making.
We’ve all heard about the kid sent to drug-counseling for having Tylenol (this one is verified true) and lots of other ridiculous anecdotes. The school board gets to tell the voters they’re doing something and nothing meaningful is accomplished.
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
Anyone else hear about the kid in Texas who was expelled for giving his asthma inhaler to his girlfriend? She was having an attack at the time, and she had a prescription for the same inhaler, but had forgotten to bring hers to school that day. The school nurse refused to do anything, even call an ambulance, so he lent her his inhaler. Under the school's zero tolerance drug policy, he was arrested later that day and automatically suspended for "administering a dangerous drug". The school board then saw fit to expell him from the district for his actions. In a statement to the press, they said he was lucky they decided not to press charges.
Yep, zero tolerance policies, they sure do work.
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
Good Grief. Give me a break. -insert other expletive- Hatrackers actually talking about whether z-t is tolerable? Never thought I'd see the day. Dispicable. Pathetic. The very wording. Might as well be called the kill everybody policy.
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
Ok, forgive my lack of thread reading and faith- you're all against it- right? If not, I disown for no extra charge.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)