Weapons in School: Zero Tolerance

[infinite monkey]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

Sorry, Sarge, but naming rights go to the winners.

Except "Operation Enduring Freedom". But that isn't a name, it's just

Ha! But it sounds so warm and fuzzy!

Wagging the dog.

[casimendocina]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

Whereas the directors of that film tormented me by alternately making me watch hugh grant while trying not to imagine him with that tranny looking hooker, and watching Toni Collette with far too many clothes on.

Image of tranny looking hooker please. Confus-ed. Do you mean Rachel Weiss?

[glatt]

Smoking Gun

[infinite monkey]

Which one's the tranny?

aside: saw Transamerica this weekend. What a great movie.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

BTW, unless the school is private and receives no funding from the government this is in fact a freedom of speech issue. Unless they can show that he is inciting to riot, that drawing is protected speech. They are not allowed to ban that speech unless they are wholly private.

Free Speech Rights of Students

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/project...dentspeech.htm

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by monster

But the whole thing bout "zero tolerance" is the "why" is irrelevant. ...

Policies (or parts thereof in this case) may just be guidelines that allow for judgment calls based upon the circumstances, they're not always definitive. Consider a child who gets into a disagreement with a teacher (perhaps over what the child should be concentrating on during class) and is admonished; then, the child sits down and draws a picture of a gun knowing full well the teacher is going to see it. That's harassment; but, the teacher may find it difficult to prove because the child, well, "he is a boy" and that's what boys do. Sometimes pictures are innocent; but, sometimes they're indications of something else going on. Parents can be the last to acknowledge that since their children's actions reflect opon them. Keep an open mind.

... Drawing a picture of gun? HTF is that a threat to the safety of any other student?

No brainer: It can be an early indicator of something that may escalate into harm to others; or, self-inflicted harm. You can't advocate teaching other kids to just shrug it off in today's proactive environment of school violence awareness without coming off as being egocentric.

[casimendocina]

Re Hugh Grant-I'd forgotten about Divine Brown (was that her name?)

[casimendocina]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

Whereas the directors of that film tormented me by [making me] watch... Toni Collette with far too many clothes on.

Was it the clothes themselves you objected to?

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Free Speech Rights of Students

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/project...dentspeech.htm

Excellent link. It brings up the issue of intent and context. If Monster's son had been taunting a kid whose family had been gunned down the week before, probably not protected. But in the absence of any specific circumstances, just drawing a picture of a gun is hardly impeding the school's mission to teach. While the act of drawing, in itself, may have been disruptive, then that is what the charge should be, not invoking the zero tolerance policy for guns.

Originally Posted by casimendocina

Was it the clothes themselves you objected to?

yes. their existence was offensive to me. I much preferred http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Story

[casimendocina]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

yes. their existence was offensive to me. I much preferred http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Story

Yes, Toni Collette was much more corporately dressed in that. That was a very uneven movie. There were some fantastic scenes, but also some really stupid bits in that movie that annoyed me incredibly like the whole dessert vs desert scene.... but we should now probably move this to the movie thread if we're going to continue.

[monster]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

Excellent link. It brings up the issue of intent and context. If Monster's son had been taunting a kid whose family had been gunned down the week before, probably not protected. But in the absence of any specific circumstances, just drawing a picture of a gun is hardly impeding the school's mission to teach. While the act of drawing, in itself, may have been disruptive, then that is what the charge should be, not invoking the zero tolerance policy for guns.

Quite. It was actually in "free time" apparently. And if it had been the former, I think bullying would have been the issue rather than weapons. But zero tolerance does not allow for intent.

[monster]

I was mostly surprised because he's been in school 5 years. he's a boy. He draws guns. He's not alone. How is this the first time I've heard it's not OK? Being fair, he's 4th grade but his drawing level is Kindergarten. And he knows it. So now he labels his drawings. Maybe they just didn't know he was drawing guns before?

[monster]

(they still don't look like guns, ffs)

[Happy Monkey]

I have zero tolerance for zero tolerance policies. Zero tolerance policies themselves are the common-sense exception which makes this zero tolerance policy OK.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by monster

... I don't see where drawing a picture of a gun (which is what my kid did) is a no-no -it may be a replica if you really stretch that, but it isn't an object or implement...

B. Other Weapon. Any object or instrument including a replica, facsimile or look-alike of such object or instrument ...

The policy doesn't say implement, it says instrument and a picture is an instrument of communication that can easily be used to communicate a threat.

... where the possession or use of same is coupled with an intent by a student to inflict injury or harm upon another person. ...

When it comes to "other weapons," the policy clearly takes intent into consideration. Harm does not have to be physical, it can be emotional and harm can occur whether the student intends for it to happen or not. The policy only holds the student responsible for intentional harm which seems quite fair to me.

Originally Posted by monster

Quite. It was actually in "free time" apparently. ...

That pretty much rules out the act of drawing as a distraction the teacher was addressing. The issue seems to be with the subject matter.

Originally Posted by monster

But zero tolerance does not allow for intent.

I take it you're referring to the teacher and not the written policy which is why you're not satisfied with the teacher's determination under that policy.

Ironically, dissatisfied parents contribute to zero tolerance policies in schools. Such policies can be applied uniformly without teachers having to psychoanalyze students and look into their backgrounds to determine intent. Teachers thereby avoid making mistakes in judgment calls that may have dire consequences. They avoid prohibiting some students from doing things that most others are allowed to do; also, the parent-teacher confrontations that arise from such situations. It's a catch 22 for the teacher: they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

The teacher was probably better off, with the variance in political correctness surrounding this issue, by avoiding making judgment calls and applying the same precautionary standard to all students. The teacher can simply claim there wasn't sufficient information or time to make an accurate determination. It forces parental intervention and places the onus for any adverse ramifications, of children drawing pictures of weapons in school, on the parents and the teacher's superiors. This seems to me like the most plausible explanation (personal agenda) for the teacher having intervened without taking disciplinary action under the circumstances you've described thus far.

It wouldn't fly with me either; but, I recognize that good people can have bad ideas. I try to separate the person from the idea.