Zero Tolerance in Schools

...How is copying a Disney Prince Charming suddenly harassment? (And, please: odds are the little Princess wasn't upset for a good reason. ) About the right age for acting out a crush before knowing what it actually means, don't you think?

Accordingly to the article, the "princess" was perfectly willing. They were "boyfriend and girlfriend" (according to the girl). It was the adults who were freaking out about this. Apparently the boy have already gotten in trouble before, for kissing her on the cheek once.

This whole thing is ridiculous, really. It is a stupid way to curb down any possible trace of "sexuality" from the poor kids. I doubt this is healthy.

edited 11th Dec '13 7:31:30 PM by Heatth

Were talking about the case where a kindergartner was penalized for 'sexual harrasment' right, when all he did was kiss a girl on the hand? Kids that age don't even have a sexuality !

And the girl didn't mind.

An important part of "Harassment" is that the target doesn't want it. This is not sexual, and it is not harassment.

Exactly. At worse they were disturbing class, which might warrant a suspension, considering it wasn't the first time it happened^note though I would personally say it would be too harsh. But then the school called it "sexual harassment", which signify how terrible they are at handling kids. Really, the ones responsible for this bullshit should be fired. This is simply not excusable. "Sexual harassment" is a far too serious accusation to be waved like that. In that sense is almost good they were just kids. At last everyone knows how stupid this is. If they were teens and a similar thing happened, the boy could be ruined for life.

edited 11th Dec '13 7:44:58 PM by Heatth

Yeah, ZT policies are dumb, the example above is just one example.

The worst part is that this isn't done to actual cases of sexual harrasment

Huh. See, the article I read about this (I'll look for the link again later) said that the girl did not want any kissing or touching from the boy. And this isn't the first time he's gotten in trouble over this kind of behavior. Now, I don't think labelling a six year old as a sexual harasser is a proper move, but if the girl wanted him to leave her alone, then I'm closer to the administration's side than his parents.

Blue, I haven't seen you on here on ages!

And yeah, it comes down to if the girl was okay with it. So far the school and the boy's parents are claiming different things, while the girl's parents have not commented.

Now I'd hesitate to apply the label "sexual harassment" even then, seeing as I doubt there's a sexual nature to it, it's still deliberately doing something to upset another kid though, so probably just regular harassment

Though even then I question the logic of suspension, it depends on what (if any) other things have been tried.

I've been around, but I've been mostly reading and not commenting.

So, the CNN article has quotes from both sets of parents. The girl's parents are claiming that it's unwanted, and has been going on for a while.

In that case I'd say they should go for whatever they feel in the best way to make sure he stops. I don't know if suspension is the best tactic to use, but I'm totally okay with kids learning early that if a person says not to touch them you don't touch them.

Concerning the suspension. I keep seeing comments along the lines of:

Heh heh. *SNORT!* Heh eh heh. By the way, the info behind these last couple of links you guys posted here (the ones that offer more in-depth info) tends not to get through. I suppose this may factor on these comments.

edited 13th Dec '13 10:07:16 AM by lordGacek

I have no problem with it being called sexual harassment because it is exactly that: unwanted sexual contact.

Kids, yes, even kids as young as six need to learn that isn't how you touch people, you don't need to do that, no means no. I'm not saying you need to go waterboard him in the janitor's closet. It's setting age appropriate foundation setting. School is not the place to be kissing people, it's for learning. If she doesn't want you to pull her hair, kiss her cheek, or chase her on the playground you need to stop.

No, they did the right thing. Especially if this is an ongoing issue.

Another thing, any time sexual whatever is mentioned in school or cited as a means of instilling punishment, there is the requirement to see if the child is being victimized. Is the child reenacting something that they are seeing at home or something that is being done to them? Are they in a family that maybe allowing them access passively or otherwise to material that is above their understanding? They're not saying this child is evil, but that this is a potentially confusing and problematic behavior that needs to be taken seriously.

This sort of reaction is also because schools in general have been under a lot of pressure to stop being so passive in investigating potential abuse situations that result in everything from bullying to family issues. I regret that the schools are having to be the ones to do this because most of the time even the school counselor doesn't have the education or experience to properly evaluate the situation, but better to overreact and get the proper authorities to look into the situation and see if there is a problem instead of just turning a blind eye.

nevermind

edited 17th Dec '13 11:29:50 AM by Know-age

Zero Tolerance shouldn't be acceptable, period.

I see what you did there.

Well, that's something.

Good Job, Obama.

That's really promising.

Honestly, I can only see three things that call for the typical zero-tolerance response: 1) drugs^note whether marijuana is included in that I will leave up to local jurisdictions; I'm thinking like meth, cocaine, etc being used, whether on campus or off; 2) alcohol on campus; 3) guns on campus.

Which is to say, actual guns, and not plastic toys, origami, pointed fingers, or dessert items.

Yes. Actual guns that shoot actual bullets capable of actually hurting someone, not a pop-tart with two bites taken out of it.

You haven't lived in hunting country, have you? You'd get a lot of completely innocent students arrested, expelled, and/or imprisoned for simply forgetting to take their rifle out of their truck Monday morning. Which happens very frequently.

I'd say illegal drugs (which would include alcohol as they're underage) are pretty much the only place where zero tolerance might apply, simply because there's no licit reason for them to possess it. And even then there's slip room on alcohol if they have...like...any family at all.

edited 9th Jan '14 1:48:30 PM by Pykrete

Actually, there's no slip room on underage possession of alcohol. In the US, there's no legal reason for an minor to possess alcohol at school, no matter what their family situation is. There's no legal reason for a minor to possess alcohol at all.

In some states, they can consume it, on private property, with the permission of, and under the supervision of their parent or legal guardian, (which means that Joe's parents can' let him drink at home while they're there, but it's not legal for them to allow him to throw a party and provide alcohol for his friends. The friends aren't under the supervision of their own parents or legal guardians.) but that's it, and that's not even universal.

I meant along the lines of the parents went on a liquor run and left it in the car.

If they were walking across campus with booze in hand, yes, that's another thing entirely. But the former is a thing that can quite plausibly happen, and a zero tolerance approach would get an innocent kid screwed.

edited 9th Jan '14 3:30:27 PM by Pykrete

I don't know how often car searches (as opposed to locker or backpack searches) happen at schools without an instigating incident, but even so, it's against the law. "It's not mine" is not an acceptable defense for the presence of illegal substances in a vehicle.

edited 9th Jan '14 3:42:41 PM by Madrugada