Has "Zero Tolerance" Gone Awry Again?

Personally, I can see a school adminstration being concerned about the word "gay" being thrown about loosely or in a way that could harass or intimidate someone.

In this case the kid's mother IS gay though. Is he supposed to hide that?

Why is the school board waiting until the 11th to hold a meeting to discuss the issue. Issue the apology to the kid and accept that you went overboard!

The
Now isn't that odd, considering this:




Both quotes pulled from fishin's article.

roger exactly right flail the 7yr old in public but hide the "adults" in private

I think speaking to the child in front of classmates, and 'punishing' him was a serious error--BUT, think of the parents of the children, who had a bit of their 7 year old innocence chipped away.

There are two sides to this issue.

Maybe so Sophia. But I don't think that was what the school was acting on here. To me is looks like political correctness gone overboard.

This is from the article (which only shows the monther's side of the story but..)



Is the word "gay" really all that bad? So bad that the vice-principle couldn't even repeat it to her on the phone? It looks like the focus was on the use of the word, not the explanation of what it meant. There is no mention of any shock or horror expressed by other parents.

OK, this is how the whole PC thing confuses me. I would think it would be more "PC" to allow the kid to say what he wanted about his mom being gay. Wasn't "Heather Has Two Mommies" held up as the epitome of PC?

It seems like the teacher is being anti-PC by, ya know, daring to take a stand to protect the innocence of 7-year-olds.

So is the kid supposed to lie to his classmates when they ask, "Why does your mom live with a woman?"

If that's addressed to me, I was being TIC, referring to Sofia's comment.

My own take is that of course he should be allowed to say that his mom is gay, and what that means.

I can't believe that poor kid was punished for that. If I was gay and that was my kid, I'd be talking to lawyers!

I think all the anti-PC folks have just got on their bandwagon over this - I see no connection at all with the now un-PC PC.

Seems to me like you have a maybe not so sophisticated school where a teacher panicked when a kid made an explanation that clearly was just a simple fact of life to him, but freaked the teacher out - whether because of their own views, or lack of experience with the topic, or because they were worried about parents' reactions when their kids came home and talked about what they learned in school today.

Now, I would guess, the school is feeling monstered by the media spotlight and is worried about the implications of whatever they do. Not an unreasonable fear, in my view, once a media frenzy starts. It is a scary place to be, in that spotlight - tends to paralyze reason and common sense.

I don't think mama is doing anyone any favours by starting, or buying into, the frenzy, either. Just wants her little boy to get on with being a normal kid (or whatever the exact words were) huh? Flying him off to some stupid talkshow is unlikely to further that aim.

Er, perhaps it would help if the mother and the school and the kid just sat down and talked quietly about how to address and redress the situation.

But then, what do I know?

I am unsure if knowing that some people prefer to have same-sex partners is destructive of children's innocence, Sofia. Presumably most 7year olds have noticed that adults tend to like hanging around in pairs - I am unsure why knowing that some of these little clusters are same-sex is any less innocent than noticing that lots of them are opposite sex.

By that logic, we ought perhaps to hide from them that anyone likes to get together?

I'm just wondering, why the school is interested in the parent's life - what about children in children's homes: "I have three fathers and eleven moms."?

Good points by dlowan. I was being a little too snotty to make my point clear. (Several trashcans full of used kleenex will attest that I am nothing if not snotty these days.) (Apologies for TMI.)

In terms of this specific case, I think it's a no-brainer, of course the kid should be allowed to speak freely about the fact that his mom is gay and what that means.

What I find interesting, and wanted to comment on, is how "PC" finds its way into the discussion. So far, it reinforces for me the notion that the only definition of "PC" is "A silly semantic overreaction that I happen to disagree with." There is no empirical definition.

It seems like in this case, fishin' is saying it is PC because, what, there is a policy against saying the word "gay"? While I'm sure there are others (I don't want to ascribe this to Sofia from her brief comment) who feel like siccing the ACLU on that poor teacher's ass is high PC.

"PC", if it ever had meaning, has become meaningless.

I'm glad it happened.

When they make blanket rules and laws that apply to everyone and then they start applying blanket rules and laws to everyone....well maybe they'll stop making blanket rules and laws that apply to everyone.

:::Brought to you by a human being of the female gender who refuses to stop inhaling carcinogenic Philip Morris cigarettes, who will not wear the safety harness supplied for her well-being in her American-made automobile, and continues to play games of chicken with unwitting pedestrians in spaces marked "Vehicles Must Stop For Pedestrians by Mass State Law".:::

<I can hear the paddy wagon coming to get me now...ooops! Did I say 'paddy'? I meant ice cream truck....oops! Did I imply that getting arrested is light-hearted business? .....I meant Large Criminal Transport Vehicle.>

Oh, PADDY is the objectionable part! I could never figure out why people get so worked up about the word "wagon" in this particular instance.

Ummm.. Just for clarification sake - It's the political correctness of the Zero Tolerance policies that I object to. Zero Tolerance policies seem to result in people over-reacting as it seems the school did in this case instead of looking at the events as they occur and acting as suits the circumstances require.

OK.

I'd be interested in finding out more about that part of the story. That's not the impression I've had so far, that it was a Zero Tolerance policy that prompted the teacher to act... my impression is more like dlowan's, that she had some sort of personal problem with it.

Just to clarify-- I think sex discussions are generally saved for a bit older age. And, I assume parents like to start off with the basics-- Being forced to start off with gay, rather than whatever their preferred starting point may be may be upsetting to many.

My point here is not anti-gay in the least. Its just that some of these conversations are really important to some parents, and they are rightfully upset that they have lost control over how to explain this to their children. Certainly don't want to string up the innocent child or his parents... Just wanted to show the other side.

Wouldn't ascribe PC to this one.

I take your point, Sophia, and others' as well. Somehow, the public scolding in front of classmates doesn't fit well with any valid point that I can even imagine.

Back to fishin's point. Yeah, zero tolerence policies get out of hand in a hurry. I often suspect they are pushed through by cowards afraid to take responsibility for exercising their own judgement - or lack thereof. So long as they conform to their own rules consistantly, they suppose themselves immune to criticism.