• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

First-grader suspended for turning in toy gun at school

For most issues -- like pulling leaves off a bush -- I agree a ZTP policy is probably too extreme. (Did your school have a ZTP for destroying school property? You didn't say.) The administrators should have some discretion. For weapons, violence or drugs I'm ready to live with ZTP.
Sounds to me like you're interested in... fair and balanced punishment. For you say that a zero tolerance policy is too extreme one way, but just right for another. We've all had decades of these zero tolerance policies and that's plenty of time to see if they are successful. Perhaps now is the time to rescind these harsh policies and re-implement policies that really address the issues instead of a one size fits all BS policy.

In fact, this is exactly like what has happened in the criminal justice arena: mandatory minimum sentences. Judges are no longer trusted to deal out fair and just sentences and are just as hog-tied as these school administrators.

Can we as a society please get to the point that being harsh to everyone is really unfair and unjust?
 
Answer this one question: A kid gets to school and looks in his backpack, sees a toy gun in the bottom, and thinks "Crap, I forgot I left that in there." What should he then do? I think we certainly know what this kid will do if it happens to him again (or any of the other students in that school for that matter). Obviously the ZTP does not address such a situation. Clearly, turning anything in is the wrong thing to do.

The part I highlighted surprises me. It's almost if the premise is that the policy's application is going to teach children to be dishonest or push them into concealing their mistakes/misdeeds. But there's another path, the path where you admit a mistake, expose an error, and accept the consequences.

Is this second scenario so far out of the realm of possibility - to expect ethical behavior - that we should default into thinking kids either too corrupt or incapable of understanding the larger picture? Are we raising natural-born miscreants? There's another way to look at it: here's a chance to instill and promote those good character traits we'd like to see in our young - honesty and responsibility.
 
If the kid turned the toy gun in to a teacher, then surely the teacher must be punished for having a toy gun in school. Ditto anyone else who touched it. And everyone who saw it at any point but didn't report it. And everyone who overheard people talking about it. And, to be safe, everyone who knows what a toy gun or a toy or a gun is. To be truly tolerant, everyone must be punished! Only then can justice safety freedom be achieved!!

Also the school must be razed to the ground.
 
If the kid turned the toy gun in to a teacher, then surely the teacher must be punished for having a toy gun in school. Ditto anyone else who touched it. And everyone who saw it at any point but didn't report it. And everyone who overheard people talking about it. And, to be safe, everyone who knows what a toy gun or a toy or a gun is. To be truly tolerant, everyone must be punished! Only then can justice safety freedom be achieved!!

Also the school must be razed to the ground.

You're right! It was as much the teachers fault that the toy made it into school as the child's. She should be checking everyone's backpack before they get into the door. Lazy-*** union workers. Just like 6 year old's should open up their backpack each morning to make sure mom didn't leave any contraband in there by mistake. And by that logic the principal is at fault too! Suspend them without pay for a week I say!
 
The part I highlighted surprises me. It's almost if the premise is that the policy's application is going to teach children to be dishonest or push them into concealing their mistakes/misdeeds. But there's another path, the path where you admit a mistake, expose an error, and accept the consequences.

Is this second scenario so far out of the realm of possibility - to expect ethical behavior - that we should default into thinking kids either too corrupt or incapable of understanding the larger picture? Are we raising natural-born miscreants? There's another way to look at it: here's a chance to instill and promote those good character traits we'd like to see in our young - honesty and responsibility.

5411453989f7b77013.jpg


If the consequences are exactly the same for admitting a mistake as getting caught anyways, what is the onus to admit to it?? You expect 1st graders to see the bigger picture? Instill and promote good character traits by showing kids to trust authority figures to be reasonable.
 
...Clearly, turning anything in is the wrong thing to do.

If you want to believe the lesson to be learned here is, turning anything in is wrong, go ahead. I don't agree with that.


It reall doesn't matter what you agree with.

The thing that matters is what a six year old took away from the episode.

What he learned is what is important. (You know. School, learning, all that stuff?)

The kid learned that acting responsibly will get you punished, and that authority doesn't give a damn about what happened as long as appearances are kept up.

It'll be a cold day in hell before that young 'un ever trusts anyone in authority to do the sensible thing.

I guess you agree that is a good lesson.

<snip>

The kid got a two-day vacation. He won't do it again. Case closed. :wink:


You're right about that. He won't risk acting responsibly again, not if there's a ghost of a chance that he's going to get treated like a miscreant anyway.

Good lesson learned.
 
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/5411453989f7b77013.jpg[/qimg]

If the consequences are exactly the same for admitting a mistake as getting caught anyways, what is the onus to admit to it?? You expect 1st graders to see the bigger picture? Instill and promote good character traits by showing kids to trust authority figures to be reasonable.

Your first question troubles me because I fear for a society where that would be the norm. But I'll answer it anyhow. The "onus" springs from one's sense of self worth and virtue. The larger philosophical premise is to act in the world as you would like it to be.

Do I expect first graders to see the larger picture? Not all. And here is where we run straight into a teachable moment. I would much prefer my child admit to a mistake, suffer the consequences and recover. Especially if the alternative is going to be, "conceal your mistakes in the hope you don't get caught."

And yes, the authority figures are being reasonable. Here's another teachable moment - the rule of law as embodied in even the highest relevant authority being beholden to the policy in play. The idea of strict interpretation having a value beyond the relatively small perceived injustices. The concept of stating a policy and sticking to it, rather than rule by way of exceptions and dodging consequences. Mercy has an application in the extent of the punishment, not in the arbitrary dismissal of policies in place.

At what age is it appropriate to teach children that "It's not fair" is a relative statement and there is a larger context?
 
Last edited:
If the kid turned the toy gun in to a teacher, then surely the teacher must be punished for having a toy gun in school. Ditto anyone else who touched it. And everyone who saw it at any point but didn't report it. And everyone who overheard people talking about it. And, to be safe, everyone who knows what a toy gun or a toy or a gun is. To be truly tolerant, everyone must be punished! Only then can justice safety freedom be achieved!!

Also the school must be razed to the ground.


I don't think you're taking this seriously enough.

ZTP is too important to be handled so casually. Nuke from orbit is the only rational response.

Sure, there might be a little collateral damage, but the important thing is that people* learn not to do it again.

(* The survivors, that is).
 
And the kids who've been suspended for finding a tiny solid plastic GI Joe gun stuffed in their pockets or other such things?

What lesson are you teaching a kid for a suspension like that? That adults can't tell the difference between a miniature toy and a weapon? That adults don't care about the difference?
 
And the kids who've been suspended for finding a tiny solid plastic GI Joe gun stuffed in their pockets or other such things?

What lesson are you teaching a kid for a suspension like that? That adults can't tell the difference between a miniature toy and a weapon? That adults don't care about the difference?

I'm not familiar with the cases you're talking about but I think the intended lesson remains clear if you want to see it.

No guns. Toy or real. In the building. At anytime. No exceptions. Ever.

It's severe I'll agree. These kinds of policies always are. That's the whole point.
 
I'm not familiar with the cases you're talking about but I think the intended lesson remains clear if you want to see it.



It's severe I'll agree. These kinds of policies always are. That's the whole point.


Because teaching and encouraging kids to act responsibly takes second place to making sure that the most insignificant possible transgressions don't go unpunished.

And that common sense takes a back seat to mindless enforcement, with the people whose judgement you are taught to trust being undependable or worse when you try to exercise that lesson.

Sounds like a good point to me.
 
And the kids who've been suspended for finding a tiny solid plastic GI Joe gun stuffed in their pockets or other such things?

What lesson are you teaching a kid for a suspension like that? That adults can't tell the difference between a miniature toy and a weapon? That adults don't care about the difference?

How about that "these things are not acceptable at school?" Surely we apply a similar principle all the time when we dress appropriately for work or avoid F-bombs at grandma's house. Learning context appropriateness seems like a good thing to teach a kid.

I think it's a fine lesson: that my own standards don't get to be imposed on others and that I shouldn't expect to just violate community policies based on my judgement of merit. It's almost a definition of what it means to be a member of a society or community - the limits and restrictions imposed and accepted. And, in fact, we do the same thing to adults who break the law - we suspend their participation by way of jail. A lesson well worth teaching.
 
Last edited:
The part I highlighted surprises me. It's almost if the premise is that the policy's application is going to teach children to be dishonest or push them into concealing their mistakes/misdeeds. But there's another path, the path where you admit a mistake, expose an error, and accept the consequences.

Is this second scenario so far out of the realm of possibility - to expect ethical behavior - that we should default into thinking kids either too corrupt or incapable of understanding the larger picture? Are we raising natural-born miscreants? There's another way to look at it: here's a chance to instill and promote those good character traits we'd like to see in our young - honesty and responsibility.
Mindlessly and helplessly enforcing unwavering and harsh punishments instills honesty and responsibility? Where is the responsibility then on the principal or other school officials? That's right -- they have none in these cases. Where are the adults stepping up and taking responsibility for deciding what's an appropriate punishment and what is not?

Where are the teachers' unions stepping up and decrying such draconian policies as unworkable and thoughtless?

Where are the parents stepping up and saying that these policies have been tried and have failed utterly in teaching children good character traits?

Does everyone think that children learn from the unwavering and harsh rule of law or all of the adults who stand around denying any responsibility at all?

In this instance, the six year old child did more and accepted more responsibility than the sorry excuses for adults ever did.


And yes, the authority figures are being reasonable.
Laughable. They all stood around claiming absolutely no responsibility except following an unethical rule that fails to do its primary purpose.


Here's another teachable moment - the rule of law as embodied in even the highest relevant authority being beholden to the policy in play. The idea of strict interpretation having a value beyond the relatively small perceived injustices.
This value has also been wonderfully instilled in adults with mandatory minimum sentences and harsher and harsher prison terms. Yup, crime has gone down because of the rainbow filled wonder of the unyielding, undifferentiating, unfair and unjust laws.


The concept of stating a policy and sticking to it, rather than rule by way of exceptions and dodging consequences. Mercy has an application in the extent of the punishment, not in the arbitrary dismissal of policies in place.
Interesting you seem to project that the six year old child would have no punishment under a system where discretion is key in deciding any act of wrongdoing.


At what age is it appropriate to teach children that "It's not fair" is a relative statement and there is a larger context?
It's not fair and not just to try and treat every situation as if they are equally wrong. Bringing a real gun to school is apparently just as bad -- according to the rules here -- as a toy. What larger context do you believe is being missed here according to these rules?


It's severe I'll agree. These kinds of policies always are. That's the whole point.
Earlier you said that it was too harsh. Here you're saying now you're okay with it being too harsh.

Even being born and raised here in America, I fail to comprehend how people mindlessly parrot harsher punishments as a panacea to crime when it very obviously does not promote that which it supposedly is enacted to. Even six year olds are indoctrinated into meekly accepting such utter tripe as unjust rule of law and that circumstances matter not a whit.

No matter that we have strong evidence from England that drawn-and-quartering and other grim public deaths such as mass hanging of anyone (INCLUDING CHILDREN) who were caught stealing a loaves of bread did nothing to curb crime. We continue to rush headlong into passing off any culpability or RESPONSIBILITY for our actions and fall back on inhumane punishments thinking it will solve all our crime problems. We've build a solid fortress of laws which are specifically aimed at negating any responsibility and culpability for adults, in fact. Rhetorically speaking, we are all overjoyed at killing them all and letting god sort them out.

Tell me -- what lessons are being truly taught to our children and all of society?

I love this country and as true a patriotic American as you can find but I still gotta say that we're seriously ******* up in this country sometimes.
 
How about that "these things are not acceptable at school?" Surely we apply a similar principle all the time when we dress appropriately for work or avoid F-bombs at grandma's house. Learning context appropriateness seems like a good thing to teach a kid.

I think it's a fine lesson: that my own standards don't get to be imposed on others and that I shouldn't expect to just violate community policies based on my judgement of merit. It's almost a definition of what it means to be a member of a society or community - the limits and restrictions imposed and accepted. And, in fact, we do the same thing to adults who break the law - we suspend their participation by way of jail. A lesson well worth teaching.

Yes context appropriateness! If someone runs a red light they should be punished, unless its because their child was in the back seat bleeding badly and they were trying to get to the emergency room. In that context their behavior is appropriate. Or punishing a child because he brought something to school he wasn't supposed to, unless he didn't know he had it and immediately informed his teacher. In that context he did nothing wrong.
 
Yes context appropriateness! If someone runs a red light they should be punished, unless its because their child was in the back seat bleeding badly and they were trying to get to the emergency room. In that context their behavior is appropriate. Or punishing a child because he brought something to school he wasn't supposed to, unless he didn't know he had it and immediately informed his teacher. In that context he did nothing wrong.

I use that method a lot. When the cop says I was speeding, I blithely inform them that I didn't know how fast I was going. Quite obviously, since I am a law abiding driver, had I known I was speeding, I would have slowed down.

As far as the kid bleeding in the back seat, what's going on is that the emergency doesn't forgive the offense, the emergency means I'm going to accept the consequences of running the read light as worth having in light of the emergency. Enforcement of the fine and traffic ticket is a penalty I'd be willing to pay.
 
I use that method a lot. When the cop says I was speeding, I blithely inform them that I didn't know how fast I was going. Quite obviously, since I am a law abiding driver, had I known I was speeding, I would have slowed down.

As far as the kid bleeding in the back seat, what's going on is that the emergency doesn't forgive the offense, the emergency means I'm going to accept the consequences of running the read light as worth having in light of the emergency. Enforcement of the fine and traffic ticket is a penalty I'd be willing to pay.

Luckily we have a legal concept in the US called "necessity". You do not need to just accept the penalties for breaking a law if you can show that obeying it could result in more harm than breaking it. So we need not be punished for breaking the law when we have to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity

We also have a legal defense called "mistake of fact".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistake_(criminal_law)

And I do see it applying in this ZTP case. And I can very much see how ZTP run contradictory to US common law concepts. Whether that makes them unconstitutional or not, I'd need a lawyer to tell me.
 
Luckily we have a legal concept in the US called "necessity". You do not need to just accept the penalties for breaking a law if you can show that obeying it could result in more harm than breaking it. So we need not be punished for breaking the law when we have to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity

We also have a legal defense called "mistake of fact".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistake_(criminal_law)

And I do see it applying in this ZTP case. And I can very much see how ZTP run contradictory to US common law concepts. Whether that makes them unconstitutional or not, I'd need a lawyer to tell me.

Your examples are correct, and, as far as I can tell - part of the law as written. Certainly the school policy could be rewritten to include those concepts, but in either case (the law at large and the school policies) the rules are being followed.

The parallel in law to what you are advocating is a cop, judge, or jury deciding not to pursue what is an actual crime, not because of what the law allows, but despite it. That's a bad practice, undermining the very rule of law we hold dear. Exceptions conjured up on an ad hoc basis are a recipe (in our larger society) for cronyism, corruption, and a host of special circumstance, lobby-driven legislation.

The law may be, on occasion, an ass, but it would be much worse if it weren't consistently applied. Remember, discretion allows in not only the judgements you like, but judgements which go the other way - capricious, personality driven, and horrendous. Perhaps this administrator gives a pass to girls, and that one to white kids, while each enforces a made-up rule about speaking Spanish on school property. The policy which trapped this student also serves to geld the administrator.
 
I'm not familiar with the cases you're talking about but I think the intended lesson remains clear if you want to see it.



It's severe I'll agree. These kinds of policies always are. That's the whole point.

So, you're actually defending the suspension of a seven year-old for doing the right thing by handing in the toy gun he didn't know was in his backpack. I find that unbelievably bizarre. The policy in this case is not severe; it's asinine.

It's also asinine to suspend teenage girls for having Midol in their purses during the time they are having menstrual periods. Do you also defend that policy?
 
I use that method a lot. When the cop says I was speeding, I blithely inform them that I didn't know how fast I was going. Quite obviously, since I am a law abiding driver, had I known I was speeding, I would have slowed down.

As far as the kid bleeding in the back seat, what's going on is that the emergency doesn't forgive the offense, the emergency means I'm going to accept the consequences of running the read light as worth having in light of the emergency. Enforcement of the fine and traffic ticket is a penalty I'd be willing to pay.

Right. when he trealized the toy was in his backback, he should have kept quite, hope he didn't get caught, and if he did he "didn't know it was there".

Under those circumstances the penalty would have been reasonable, but calling attention to his "sin" was foolish and self-harming. no reason to seek punishment.
 

Back
Top Bottom