Boy sent home because of hat.

[Andy Moynihan]

Reading this I was thinking that's a damn good point, I for one hadn't thought of it this way. Tbh I hadn't seen it as anything other than Americans love for weapons which is actually how many see America. It is seen as a militaristic state with the people in love with their guns more than anything else. Now whether this is a true perception or not, is a different matter of course.

To liberally paraphrase Tolkien:

"I love not the rifle for its accuracy, nor the shotgun for its power, nor the pistol for its round-the-clock readiness. I love only that which they defend".

 

[Tez3]

To liberally paraphrase Tolkien:

"I love not the rifle for its accuracy, nor the shotgun for its power, nor the pistol for its round-the-clock readiness. I love only that which they defend".

Fair one!

The problem I think though is one we had many years ago, that the people think 'gunboat diplomacy' works, that you can get yourself out of any situation by the use of arms. So this is where patriotism and militancy appear to be the same thing. Behind everything America says there is the shadow of it's Armed Forces. One thing I have noticed is that in many of the arguments Americans have about topics close to their hearts the phrase 'it's or you're unAmerican' comes up a lot as if you can't hold different views, that there is only one 'American' view of situations. Very rarely will you hear the people of any other country when arguing points use that sort of 'patriotic' language. I've never heard someone say oh you are 'unBritish' or 'you're unFrench' in an argument! On the subject of whther to carry arms or not this expression comes up a lot, I'm sure both sides have their pros and cons but I can't see either side being unpatriotic because of the viewes they hold tbh.

 

[JDenver]

Some interesting points, and I'll come back to my central one, which is that this particular teacher found the application of the military in a project on patriotism to be inappropriate.

I won't defend the teacher but I don't find anything stupid in that.

 

[CoryKS]

Did the school overreact? Possibly, but we can choose to try to understand the position rather than just dismissing it as stupidity.

The project was on patriotism, not militarization. Many Americans don't understand that positioning those two importantly distinctive things together can be, well, problematic. You don't have to support increased military action and military spending in order to support your country. You can support the flag without the need for a soldier with it.

Frankly, many people around the world find this unabashed reverance for the military a little chilling. You find this type of meshing of national pride and military might in North Korea and China and the USA, but not in France or Germany or Denmark or Canada.

You also don't have to suppress someone else's desire to support the military even if you don't approve. I find that sort of thing more than a little chilling as well. Defense of one's country is an aspect of patriotism and the fact that a kid's hat reflects that doesn't necessarily mean he wants to roll tanks into other countries. The inability to draw the distinction between defense and aggression is what makes this a wingnut talking point rather than an objective stance.

 

[Archangel M]

The kid is obviously raised in a family that loves/supports our military (was dad a veteran?). The school has no place trying to "brainwash" this kid with their liberal agenda over the parents upbringing. So much for cultivating our kids individuality and ability to express it....but I guess that ship sailed (or was torpedoed by the "SS Progressive") years ago.

 

[MJS]

Did the school overreact? Possibly, but we can choose to try to understand the position rather than just dismissing it as stupidity.

The project was on patriotism, not militarization. Many Americans don't understand that positioning those two importantly distinctive things together can be, well, problematic. You don't have to support increased military action and military spending in order to support your country. You can support the flag without the need for a soldier with it.

Frankly, many people around the world find this unabashed reverance for the military a little chilling. You find this type of meshing of national pride and military might in North Korea and China and the USA, but not in France or Germany or Denmark or Canada.

Points taken. OTOH, people often associate the two. The flag represents America, the Military fights for the freedom of America, etc., so perhaps this was the case. Either way, I still think the school over reacted. My God, its not like the kid walked with with 3 guns on his hip and ammo strung across his chest. LOL!

 

[blink13]

The kid is obviously raised in a family that loves/supports our military (was dad a veteran?). The school has no place trying to "brainwash" this kid with their liberal agenda over the parents upbringing. So much for cultivating our kids individuality and ability to express it....but I guess that ship sailed (or was torpedoed by the "SS Progressive") years ago.

Torpedoes are evil, you hawk. You should be banned from MT for the day.

 

[Tez3]

As an outsider with no dog in this fight, it does look however as if it's going from one extreme to another. As was asked by JDenver, is it impossible to understand another point of view without deeming someone with an opposite point of view a nutter? Doesn't anyone actually look at these situations and think well perhaps they've a point, 'I'll have to look at it closer and in more depth before I start screaming'? Perhaps looking closer into the matter might reveal something interesting that may change your mind, it may not but how do you know until you've listened?

According to one report I read, the mother said she'd wanted to honour American troops so had decorated the hat with the soldiers and guns. Now looking at that statement there's nothing wrong with that, nice thought actually, but if asked to do a project on patriotism she's on the wrong tack as it wasn't about celebrating the Forces, it was about patriotism as a whole as seen and felt by the pupils. It seems too that the school rules say no guns, now whether that's good or bad is irrelevant, it's a school rule and one which the mother encouraged her son to break so the school has a point there.

There's a couple of arguments in there, is the school right to have such a rule? Is it right to teach children to break rules because you disagree with them or should the mother not have sent her son to school with guns on his hat? Would it have been better to obey the rules and campaign to change them instead if you feel they were wrong?

The school really had no choice, the crux of the matter is that school rules were broken so he was sent home.

 

[Archangel M]

Translating "no guns" to mean "no toy soldiers" is WAY out in "leftist field" IMO. It's not A GUN, its a tiny piece of plastic fer GODS SAKE!!! This is about politics and not about school safety.

 

[CoryKS]

Translating "no guns" to mean "no toy soldiers" is WAY out in "leftist field" IMO. It's not A GUN, its a tiny piece of plastic fer GODS SAKE!!! This is about politics and not about school safety.

 

[Tez3]

Translating "no guns" to mean "no toy soldiers" is WAY out in "leftist field" IMO. It's not A GUN, its a tiny piece of plastic fer GODS SAKE!!! This is about politics and not about school safety.

Yes but thats a different argument to the actual case. The school has a no guns rule, the toy soldiers had guns therefore it was against the rules.The mother said the toy soldiers all had guns except one which had binoculars. The school had no choice when deciding this was against the rules. If they don't stick to the rules they made they have no hope of teaching any discipline or getting any respect for having rules, they may as well make it a free for all.

Now if you want to argue that it's a stupid rule that's a sensible debate but you can't argue that breaking school rules however stupid you think they are, and they may well be, is a good way for children to go.

 

[Archangel M]

No. The boy had plastic soldiers with little pointed pieces of plastic. Whats next, can't draw a gun? Can't point your finger like a gun?...oh wait THAT has already happened.

 

[Archangel M]

If the kid brought in a screwdriver for "tool day" would he be sent home? A screwdriver can be made into an effective weapon. A plastic soldier?

This is entirely a political correctness/groupthink/thought police situation.

 

[Tez3]

No. The boy had plastic soldiers with little pointed pieces of plastic. Whats next, can't draw a gun? Can't point your finger like a gun?...oh wait THAT has already happened.

I would want to know who proposed the rule, and was it generally accepted by the parents. If it was there's no argument, you don't have to like it but if parents want a no gun policy, however large or small the 'gun', in their school surely they can have it. If they can't have the rules they want in their children's schools I think as a country you could be in trouble. Don't you allow freedom of choice, does other peoples choices have to be treated with so much scorn, derision and insults?

Looking at a photo of the hat, the toy soldiers look quite big enough to have guns clearly seen and identified. I also think the kid doesn't look as though he's honouring soldiers at all, he looks like a kid with toy soldiers stuck on his hat, pretty silly!

 

[Tez3]

If the kid brought in a screwdriver for "tool day" would he be sent home? A screwdriver can be made into an effective weapon. A plastic soldier?

This is entirely a political correctness/groupthink/thought police situation.

Perhaps the parents want the school run that way, isn't it up to them in the end? Your children don't have to go there, you'd send them to somewhere that shares your views and you'd be annoyed if someone started called you names and ranting because of your choices.

 

[Archangel M]

They are not "guns". They are tiny shapes of plastic in representation of a gun. It's the idea of a gun they are outlawing here, not any real physical object or risk..and its moronic. But what is more idiotic is the whole "zero tolerance" concept. Zero Tolerance is simply an "easy out" for school administrators..they don't have to exercise and common sense, good judgement or discretion..all they have to do is blindly enforce the rules.

 

[Archangel M]

Perhaps the parents want the school run that way, isn't it up to them in the end? Your children don't have to go there, you'd send them to somewhere that shares your views and you'd be annoyed if someone started called you names and ranting because of your choices.

It's a public school funded by everybody in the district as well as FEDERAL funds. It's not a private school

 

[crushing]

So the school has a no weapons policy. A #2 pencil makes for a more dangerous weapon than those little molded plastic toys. I certainly hope the school proxy servers block such dangerous sites as this! http://www.instructables.com/id/Office-Weapons/

The school did have a choice. They had the choice to see that hat for what it really was, rather than try to rationalize some tiny pieces of plastic into dangerous items to be used to destroy, defeat, or injure an enemy.

Also, had some thinking educators been on site, they could have used the hat as a 'teachable moment' to create a dialog on the differences and possible relationships between military and patriotism instead of "You did it wrong, now go home!"

As I was typing this, I wondered how much more ridiculous this could get, so I googled the terms "expelled for making gun with hands" and found the following:

Yakima kindergartner expelled for making a gun with hands
http://www.kndu.com/global/story.asp?s=11979866

Personally, I find the little green 'army men' toys to be much more dangerous than a kindergartner pointing a finger. I have stepped on an army man or two in my time and it didn't feel very good. I have yet to be injured by a finger being pointed at me.

 

[Archangel M]

http://www.heartland.org/full/27166/Zero_Tolerance_for_Federal_Mandates.html

...
Every state and school district in America has strict rules against violence and drugs on campus. That’s as it should be. But that common-sense policy shouldn’t require a federal law.

Nevertheless, in 1994 Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed the Gun-Free Schools Act in response to a rash of school shootings. The law required every district to establish a zero-tolerance policy for guns or risk losing federal funds. Any student caught with a gun on campus faces a mandatory one-year expulsion and possible prosecution. Most districts toughened their rules after the Columbine High School massacre in 1999 (which in itself shows how poorly the federal law worked). Over time, zero tolerance expanded to drugs, knives, sexual assault, gang paraphernalia, and explosives—all of which were of course already illegal.

...

Hmmm...concern for safety or concern for $$$$?

Read the rest of this one if you want to be educated as to why we Americans get upset about this "zero tolerance" lunacy.

Fearful of not being strict enough, many schools have gone further still, banning anything that even vaguely resembles a weapon or a drug. Students across the country have faced suspension or expulsion for wearing t-shirts with pictures of guns; bringing tiny, unrealistic toy guns to school; packing common kitchen utensils in lunch bags; and possessing candy.

Yes, candy. In 2008, school officials in New Haven, Connecticut suspended eighth-grade honor student Michael Sheridan and stripped him of his title as class vice-president after he was caught buying a bag of Skittles from a classmate. The school district had banned candy sales in 2003 as part of a district-wide “wellness” policy, so the school considered the candy contraband.

Friggin CRAZY!!! And unless you make enough money to send your child to private school, entirely inescapable!!

 

[Tez3]

So the school has a no weapons policy. A #2 pencil makes for a more dangerous weapon than those little molded plastic toys. I certainly hope the school proxy servers block such dangerous sites as this! http://www.instructables.com/id/Office-Weapons/

The school did have a choice. They had the choice to see that hat for what it really was, rather than try to rationalize some tiny pieces of plastic into dangerous items to be used to destroy, defeat, or injure an enemy.

Also, had some thinking educators been on site, they could have used the hat as a 'teachable moment' to create a dialog on the differences and possible relationships between military and patriotism instead of "You did it wrong, now go home!"

As I was typing this, I wondered how much more ridiculous this could get, so I googled the terms "expelled for making gun with hands" and found the following:

Yakima kindergartner expelled for making a gun with hands
http://www.kndu.com/global/story.asp?s=11979866

Personally, I find the little green 'army men' toys to be much more dangerous than a kindergartner pointing a finger. I have stepped on an army man or two in my time and it didn't feel very good. I have yet to be injured by a finger being pointed at me.

Actually I think the kid should have been sent home and told to return with something for HIS project that he'd come up with and made rather than his mother.
His mother is quoted on several reports saying her son wanted to honour the Armed Services so she came up with the hat idea then made it. Then as an adult knowing the schools no gun policy she sent him and it to school then called all the media when he was sent home as she surely knew he would be, so fifteen minutes of fame anyone?

Technically it said it had a 'no gun' policy which also included pictures of guns on t shirts etc. not a 'no weapon' one. Legal distinction there lol!


The thing about rules though is that in places such as schools they should be obeyed, it's part of learning to be an adult. Schools have always had some odd rules, way back even when I was at school. things like skirts having to be a certain length, yes totally pointless but the thing is you learnt to keep those rules or try to change them. The kid wasn't punished because of 'candy' the child was punished because it broke the rules. Would you have children only keeping the rules they like? Sure it's a daft rule but it's a schools daft rule, you can't encourage children to break them. You can encourage them to question it and lobby to change it, thats the proper way not just break the rules then whinge because you were caught.