quote:What I find most disturbing, aside from treating a bag of candy like it was a bag of pot, is the fact that the school stripped Michael Sheridan of his position of class Vice President, thus betraying the typical liberal mentality that if the cause is just, and politically correct, the choice of the people who voted is of no real consequence. The arrogance of liberal edu-crats is almost beyond comprehension.
I'm not sure if that's really funny or really scary.
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
Got any m&m's?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Skittles should not be treated like hard candy. They are not addictive.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Squick, agreed. The blog post was more entertaining than the news article, which is part of why I linked it.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
That's inane. I'm all for wellness and avoiding candy, but this is just plain STUPID. They're not even elemnatary school kids; even then I think the MOST that should happen is confisctaing the candy until the end of the day.
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
That's a lot like saying the economy is ruined and government has failed because of the Heritage Foundation.
Oh, wait. I guess it's nothing like that at all.
Posted by adfectio (Member # 11070) on :
I remember when the school used to sell suckers to us at lunch. or was it cocaine? I'm having a hard time remembering. Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: Sullivan-DeCarlo said Sheridan Middle School principal Eleanor Turner repeatedly warned students that she did not want candy to be sold or money to change hands during school. Turner referred all questions to Sullivan-DeCarlo.
Aside from the nutrition issue, Sullivan-DeCarlo said, students create security problems when they carry money.
Now they can't carry money either? Yes, and they could hang themselves for being in such a crazy school, better take their belts and shoelaces too.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
Suckers laced with cocaine. Don't forget the sugar dots with LSD.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Skittles should not be treated like hard candy. They are not addictive.
True, but they're a gateway candy to the harder stuff.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
But that's only because they are forbidden. If eating skittles is made criminal, only criminals will eat skittles, see?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
And everyone knows what the rainbow means.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Skittles should not be treated like hard candy. They are not addictive.
I always thought they should be called "Skitters."
Posted by cassv746 (Member # 11173) on :
I really want a bag of Skittles now. Posted by dantesparadigm (Member # 8756) on :
Psst... If your looking to 'take a ride on the rainbow" I've got what you're looking for right here.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: Psst... If your looking to 'take a ride on the rainbow" I've got what you're looking for right here.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:thus betraying the typical liberal mentality that if the cause is just, and politically correct, the choice of the people who voted is of no real consequence.
How is this typically liberal?
Posted by cassv746 (Member # 11173) on :
quote:Originally posted by dantesparadigm: Psst... If your looking to 'take a ride on the rainbow" I've got what you're looking for right here.
Psst...You know that's taste the rainbow, right? Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
That smiley is so appropriate.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:How is this typically liberal?
Because it's made of straw.
[ March 12, 2008, 08:37 PM: Message edited by: Samprimary ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Plus it's fascist, so it must be liberal.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Oy what a load of crap.
Sometimes I miss K-12, I had a lot of fun there and it was certainly easier than the life beyond, but jeez, if I was hit with something like this my head would explode from anger.
With everything going wrong in our skills, contraband Skittles is what they're cracking down on? The principal needs to get his/her head screwed on straight and stop wasting everyone's time.
Posted by Pegasus (Member # 10464) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: With everything going wrong in our skills, contraband Skittles is what they're cracking down on?
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
Yeah, in all seriousness things like this annoy me because it makes no sense. Especially regarding the whole "obesity epidemic" I don't see the value in outright banning sweets from schools or things like that and placing this sort of wild punishment along with it. The detriment of eating candy and the severity of the punishment are simply... mismatched, incongruous. Can anyone make a good argument for why this sort of zero tolerance of sweets is worth enforcing? I'd be genuinely interested to hear that.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
To clarify: Skittles were not banned. Selling candy was banned.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Hmmm, that would have killed our annual JROTC fundraiser.
We weren't allowed to sell candy during class but we made a heck of a lot of sales in between classes.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Apparently, buying candy was also banned.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
The actual article (linked from the blog) opened with a statement (repeated in the body of the text as well) that the Superintendent of School is reviewing the Principal's decision and and that the punishment had already been reduced.
I suspect the outcome will be a quick and quiet resolution with no suspension, and no loss of honor's status, etc. Either that or a lawsuit which the school district would likely lose.
In any event, it does sound like the school district policies need some tightening up.
It'll be interesting to see how the makers of Skittles respond to this.
Posted by adfectio (Member # 11070) on :
This has quite the colorful range of opinions.
</bad puns>
But in all seriousness, this is crazy. Where they disrupting class? The fact that they weren't 'caught' until later tells me that it didn't disrupt class at all.
Granted, we can't base everything on what disrupts class. There are things which are an absolute NO and can't be allowed. But candy? Since when did a favorite afternoon snack become illegal? How does that hurt the child? We can argue obesity, or rotten teeth, but it's *candy* for goodness sake.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pegasus:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: With everything going wrong in our skills, contraband Skittles is what they're cracking down on?
Damn.
Would have been more funny had I said "Skools."
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Apparently, buying candy was also banned.
Good point, but it's like redox. Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
From the blog:
quote:As if banning the image of a perfectly legal firearm wasn’t stupid enough, there is this bit of inanity from some of our un-elected education bureaucrats
I'm trying to figure out which "bureaucrats" the blogger is talking about.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Juxtapose:
I assume that the blogger is referring to the principal/superindendent; some counties and schools do not elect these individuals-- they're appointed by the school board.
In fact, I think some school boards may be appointed positions.
Posted by anti_maven (Member # 9789) on :
Eighth grade - according to Google that would make the kid 13-14 yeas old right?
Surely he's old enough to work out if he wants to eat Skittles or not. It might be a different kettle of fish if he was eating in class (a capital punishment in my old school) but mearly having them in his pocket, wherever he bought them, is ridiculous.
This sort of thing brings our the rabid libertarian in me...
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Juxtapose:
I assume that the blogger is referring to the principal/superindendent; some counties and schools do not elect these individuals-- they're appointed by the school board.
In fact, I think some school boards may be appointed positions.
There are places where principals and superintendents are elected?!? Everywhere I've lived they've been hired by the school board.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Superintendents are elected in our district, as are school board members. Principals are then hired by those boards.
There are however, some school boards that are appointed rather than elected.
An interesting experiment - try finding out who is on your state board of education - then look at their backgrounds. Alabama's state board is headed by the governor - who has never taught school. And the board itself is full of lawyers and businessmen - and those that do have any teaching experience had it years and years - even decades ago.
Then talk to to a teacher about how much influence the state board has on the curriculum you teach and what you cover - it's a whole lot, at least around here. Teachers are expected to quote the Alabama Course of Study in every lesson plan, and send home notices to parents about what part of the COS they're studying with their kids. The COS determines nearly everything done in the classroom and it's put together by politicians, not teachers. Very frustrating.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"I remember when the school used to sell suckers to us at lunch. or was it cocaine?"
The superintendent revoked the punishment, for both kids. Using the lack of paperwork as grounds, for sure, but I doubt that he would have looked for grounds if he didn't think that the principal had over-reacted to the situation.
[ March 14, 2008, 04:14 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Intelligent bureaucracy all over the place!
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I assume that the blogger is referring to the principal/superindendent; some counties and schools do not elect these individuals-- they're appointed by the school board.
In fact, I think some school boards may be appointed positions.
Actually, I assumed that the principal and superintendent were hired by the school board. It's a pretty huge stretch though to call a principal a bureaucrat. The super, maybe, but he's the one who reduced the kid's punishment.
I could be wrong, but wouldn't this kind of policy be the work of the school board, which is elected?
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Man, this has "only in the US" written all over it. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:It's a pretty huge stretch though to call a principal a bureaucrat.
I don't think it's a huge stretch. Principals are administration/managers; they can be bureaucrats.
Posted by adfectio (Member # 11070) on :
Well at least the kid got off. Maybe it shows the superintendant having some sense. But it's possible that there was just a fear of repurcusions.
As for the pixie stix, no matter what anyone tells you, don't snort it. It burns.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Corwin: Man, this has "only in the US" written all over it.
Somehow I see religion as more of a controversial thing as candy. I understand some of the reasons for the French law although I don't agree with it. This I view as simply silly.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Expelling someone for wearing a headscarf.
Giving a 1-day suspension for buying skittles.
I don't see a big difference in the silliness department there.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
One's a deeply stupid nationwide law; the other is an incident at a single middle-school!
Together, they fight crime!
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Have you *read* the reasons for each? Look, I'm not gonna argue in favor of a law I'm not actually in favor of; but equating buying skittles with concerns over keeping a secular system in public schools, with no divisions because of religions/philosophy, is beyond my understanding.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:equating buying skittles with concerns over keeping a secular system in public schools, with no divisions because of religions/philosophy, is beyond my understanding.
I'm confused. I keep hearing people insist that secularism does not mean barring people from making public expressions of faith. Accusations that it does are treated as hysteria from the religious right.
Yet here we have secularism being used as the justification for banning a public expression of faith.
It's silly. The justifications are silly. The idea that, even if the justifications were true, this would actually help with the problem is enormously silly. "We're afraid girls are being forced to wear headscarves against their will, so we'll kick them out of school if they do" doesn't pass the laugh test.
But let's grant each side their justifications. On the one hand, we have France's commitment to secularism in schools. On the other hand, we have numerous studies that sale of sugary snacks in schools contributes heavily to an obesity epidemic that is the number one health concern in the U.S.
Why is the former less of a justification than the latter?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: ... I'm confused. I keep hearing people insist that secularism does not mean barring people from making public expressions of faith. Accusations that it does are treated as hysteria from the religious right.
Yet here we have secularism being used as the justification for banning a public expression of faith....
"I'm confused. I keep hearing people insist that religion does not cause violence and suffering. Accusations that it does are treated as "strident", "extremist", or "fundamentalist."
Yet [in many places around the world], we have religion used as the justification for violence ..."
Seriously, these particular French laws have more to do with xenophobia than secularism. They are quite clearly targeted at Muslims which are immigrating in large numbers. Actually, we could probably turn around most arguments for religion not causing violence and suffering. (This is a perversion of secularism and not what we really mean, this is just people taking advantage of secularism as an excuse to promote other agendas, etc.) The sword cuts both ways
(Personally, I find the French laws *more* silly than the candy thing.
Edit to add: Also, for others, I wouldn't rest too easy on the belief that "it could not happen here." If Muslims came to the US in the same numbers as France, especially in the current political climate I have little confidence that we would not have similar problems integrating them and creating laws to deal with it. Just take the current immigration debate, multiply with religion issue, and stir with the religious right)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Seriously, these particular French laws have more to do with xenophobia than secularism.
I agree. In fact, that is largely my point - this is why the justification given is silly.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally Posted by: Mucus Edit to add: Also, for others, I wouldn't rest too easy on the belief that "it could not happen here." If Muslims came to the US in the same numbers as France, especially in the current political climate I have little confidence that we would not have similar problems integrating them and creating laws to deal with it. Just take the current immigration debate, multiply with religion issue, and stir with the religious right)
While I don't think it's impossible for some sort of anti-Muslim law to be enacted in the US, I also don't think the situations are nearly the same. First off, I'm willing to bet that if you actually checked the number, there are almost as many Muslims in America as in France, probably equal if you just say people of Arab decent, and I'd bet we have nearly as many immigrating here too. You might be closer if you said coming here in the same numbers as a percentage of the total population, where in France Muslims probably now number around 8% (it's up for dispute) of the population, in America it's probably something like 1%. America is also vastly larger than France. In other words, even if they were the same numbers, they blend in amongst more people, far more spread out in America.
But even if we were dealing on somewhat even terms of numbers, which I don't ever see happening. There'd need to be an influx of almost 30 million Muslims to America to equal it, and that number I think WOULD spook a lot of people, but it's purely academic in discussion, as it would take more than 10 years to get that many Muslims here via immigration, and by that time, the population will have grown all by itself another few million Christians. I think every Muslim immigrant is offset probably two to one by Catholics from South America.
But like I said, even if they did come in those huge numbers, France and America are fundamentally different. We have 230 years of practice with integrating and assimilating different cultures, personalities and religions into our national fabric. The kinds of laws that France is starting to make now out of xenophobia and fear of losing their cultural and national identity are the same (or nearly the same) fears that led to all sorts of anti-immigrant laws in America. We had anti-Catholic laws for almost two centuries, anti-Asian laws unless we're letting them build our railroads, anti-black laws, anti-Irish laws, anti-fill in the blank laws.
And I'll go out on a limb here and say that I think we're better now. We've gone through so many cycles of detesting whatever the next wave of immigrants is, but we don't bat an eyelash at Irish immigrants, anti-Catholic hysteria has died down, even from where it was as recently as the 60's, we've gotten better. And it's probable that there's no nation on Earth today that has the history with immigration that we've had in such a short span of time. France is much, much older than we are. They have buildings in Paris older than all of America, and their cultural and national identity goes way, way back. They see the world outside them as hostile, they're feeling still today a backlash from their old colonialist holdings come home to roost, and seeing a tenth (possible) of their country as unFrench as possible is a scary, scary thing to a country that has been Frencher than the Frenchiest French you could possibly be for a thousand years.
I don't think we have that as much here because America has always been more an idea than a reality. But do I discount the theoretical possibility? No. I just think for all our faults, we're better for it, and maybe our tolerance is a little bit higher. I'll start to worry when it moves beyond rhetoric.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I guess the REAL question is, then ¨people are people so why should it be, you and I should get along so awfully.¨
No, seriously, I doubt the Frenchies are any more xenophobic than we are, at least not that much more. People really are people, in large groups. Individual differences disappear.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I doubt the Frenchies are any mroe xenophobic, on average. People are people. If my county suddenly gained 5 thousand Muslims in a few years, I would be sitting up and taking notice. Not because of any inherent problem with Islam, but because of CURRENT problems with Islam.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Lyrhawn: Hmmm, bit of a miscommunication. I did actually mean numbers as in percentage-wise, obviously not absolute values.
And I wasn't saying anything about the realism of Muslims coming to America in the same percentages (partially because I don't think immigration law would stay the same), just that as steven says, people are people.
(and at this juncture, I see that we're agreed that that number WOULD spook people)
As for the rest, I *want* to believe you but I seriously doubt it, in either Canada or the US. Sometimes I feel like we're only one major war with China (or I guess the parallel for Muslims would be two or more 9/11 incidents) from some major xenophobia, codified into laws or otherwise. But I guess time will tell.
Minor quibble:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... And it's probable that there's no nation on Earth today that has the history with immigration that we've had in such a short span of time. ...
I doubt it. According to the CIA world factbook, Canada is at 5.79 migrant(s)/1,000 population while the US is substantially lower at 3.05 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2007 est.) Granted these are current numbers, but I don't see much reason to think that the difference would have changed that much.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:According to the CIA world factbook, Canada is at 5.79 migrant(s)/1,000 population while the US is substantially lower at 3.05 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2007 est.) Granted these are current numbers, but I don't see much reason to think that the difference would have changed that much.
I said history, not current numbers. What I was referring to and what you're refuting it with are worlds apart.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Read the second quoted sentence
Edit to add: I would add that normally, given an unbacked assertion like "it's probable that there's no nation on Earth today that has the history with immigration that we've had in such a short span of time", the burden of proof is to back it up with evidence before we accept it, rather than that of the doubter to disprove it.
That said, here's an interesting talk transcript:
quote: But the census of 1910 which falls right in the middle, actually toward the tail end of this great migration, is the census that shows the highest percentage, or proportion of immigrants that are foreign-born persons ever in the American population. Sometimes I ask people to guess what that percentage is, and they know enough about the period that millions, a million immigrants per year arriving, and some of the people guess, well, its 40, 30, 40, 50 percent. No. It’s 14.7 percent, is the proportion of foreign born people in the United States in the census of 1910, which census records the highest percentage of immigrants ever in American society. Now that figure, 14.7 percent, has a property, it seems to me, is undeniable. It’s a reasonably large number, but it is unarguably a minority number, or percentage, okay, 14.7 percent. So among the things that it seems to me enabled this society to absorb so many, and such a large absolute number of migrants relatively peacefully, has to -- the explanation has to do simply with the pre-existing scale of the society. The immigrants, all of them lumped together, never amounted to more than 14.7 percent of the total population. So that factor alone helps us understand why immigrants, had they been able to band together into a single political cultural block, would have had a pretty tough time really challenging the existing cultural arrangements that they found. Okay. So that’s, one. ... Moreover here’s another perspective on this. If we look at the way in which other countries in our own day have taken in immigrants, we also see that for all the high-profile immigration issue has here there are several other societies that have actually taken in immigrants at a much higher rate than we have in the present day. Canada for the last 30 years or so has taken in migrants at the rate of 17 [persons] per 1,000 resident population per year. Australia has taken in people at the rate of about 15 per 1,000 population per year. United States has taken in people at the rate of about 3 persons per 1,000 population per year.
The talk is actually fairly long and interesting actually link
But anyways, we're up from the current day to at least thirty years back.
[ March 15, 2008, 01:03 AM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Give me a candy-snarfing fatty over an moronic fascist any day.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Give me a candy-snarfing fatty over an moronic fascist any day.
Do we have to take one?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
You have to take a candy.
First one's free.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Mucus -
Maybe someday when I have the time I'll go into it further, but surface numbers like that don't begin to scratch what I'm talking about. Where are those immigrants from? What are their religions? Histories? Ethnicities? What languages do they speak? Where did they settle? Where are they now? Over what span of time? How big is the nation in question?
You seem to be referring to raw numbers, regardless of whether or not they are current or past. But I said it's probable that no nation has our history, which places no value on it, one way or the other. You'd have to examine every nation that currently exists and prove that one of them shares a vast majority of characteristics to prove that indeed another nation DOES share it. That's one debate. And it goes way, WAY beyond just numbers and percentages of populations.
The other debate would be on what sort of value you'd place on America's history in relation to every other nation's history. We haven't even gotten into that one, nor do I really plan to.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Ok, I suppose its possible that if you consider enough variables the US might be tops in the unique historical experience immigrating the Korean, Jewish, Esperanto-speaking, community between the 50s and 60s and that comparatively "no nation on Earth today that has the history with immigration". Fair enough.
I'm just saying in terms of broader numbers, like the ones pointed out in the talk, immigration as a percentage of the population, or rates of immigration to certain areas, the talk I linked makes a pretty compelling case* that immigration to America wasn't nearly as fast OR unique as commonly perceived. Thus I don't really buy the assertion that there is something uniquely extensive about the American immigration experience (lending some special protection from xenophobia) without proof.
Maybe there are other reasons, but for now, I doubt it.
* The talk actually gives a quick summary of all immigration to the US and on the historical context of Hispanic immigration
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
I'm not sure it's liberal, but whatever it is, it's ridiculous. We're starting to fence our kids (and ourselves) in with so many rules that it's almost no wonder so many of them rebell in such earth shattering ways. After all, if we treat SELLING (or buying) candy the way we used to treat things like bringing a beer to school, or having a fist fight where someone actually got HURT is it really any wonder that kids have a hard time figuring out right and wrong? Now, I'm all for following rules and stuff. I actually was sorta a horrid kid to be friends with because I was almost obsessive about not breaking rules. Still, when grown-ups can't put things in perspective, how can we help to pass along any perspective to our kids.
As Theresa Wiggin said, most of parenting is indoctrinating kids into the rules and beliefs you want them to live by. If we're indoctrinating them to see that skittles are the equivilant of a punch then is it any surprise that kids can get mixed up about what the apprpriate reaction is if a girl breaks up with them for another guy or trips them in the hall?
You have to wonder, what can be done to turn this around?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:We're starting to fence our kids (and ourselves) in with so many rules that it's almost no wonder so many of them rebell in such earth shattering ways.
Starting to? This isn't new, just different. Consider the old rules on courting, for example. Or the etiquette of which fork to use. Or when to remove your hat when greeting a woman. Or the "Blue Laws" against selling alcohol before 2 PM on Sunday, etc.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Principals are hired via contracts so favorably tight that it costs more to fire them than it does to pay them for their entire contract, often several times more. Worse, an absurdly incompetent one can't be reassigned off to a desk job where they can't do any harm even at full pay without their express permission; at least not without facing similarly stiff penalties from a breach-of-contract lawsuit.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
That is false in all the cases I know of. Care to provide some evidence?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Try the LosAngelesTimes. I am very surprised that you ask, considering that the highly negative effects of incompetent principals upon schools to which they were assigned was HUGE news in LA County.
[ April 12, 2008, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I wish you'd link to your evidence, aspectre.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
So do I. You exaggerate greatly -- and are you talking about LAUSD or another district? L.A. County is big.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, and practices regarding principals vary greatly around the US.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
LAUSD in particular, with examples of similar experiences in other school districts (some in other states, I think). The point being that so few folks are qualified through the required advanced degrees compared to demand that school districts sign contracts which are highly-weighted in favor of those they hire as principals.
As for links and exaggeration, call or email the LATimes about their series* based on L.A.Unified's internal report cuz their website searchengine is close to worthless.
* Published before Oct2005
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Or you could, then provide a link. Since you're the one making the strong assertion.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
If it's from that long ago, it'll be a pay-only thing from the Times. Then again, if it's such a big deal you'd think there'd be other sites . . .
(I believe I remember the series you are talking about, and it did not say what you are claiming.)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)