- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 96,116
- Reaction score
- 33,462
- Location
- SE Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
What kind of lesson is that? What kind of example is that setting for children? You can misbehave and refuse to apologize, but as long as you complain it will all work out in the end.
If I understand this correctly, a student gave a speech using language in violation of school policy and refused to apologize when asked. How could anyone support that?
Rules are rules. I can't believe the petulant attitude I am seeing here, it is shocking that any mature adult would defend the behavior of this disobedient child.
A small point but it's the whole crux of the issue for me. Sure the punishment is extreme. But all she had to do to avoid it was to apologize for the thing she did wrong. The foul language isn't the problem, it is her obstinacy in refusing to apologize.
Why should she apologize? She'd be rewarding the school's Bible thumping moronic overblown reaction by pretending that her behavior is the problem, not the school's.
Perhaps its the policy that's the problem. It is the conservative/libertarian aspect of "Those doggone children!"
Stupid whining about children is a bipartisan thing, but each side handles it differently.
Liberals bitch that the media is "too violent", and that it needs to be toned down for our precious li'l youngsters
Conservatives and libertarians bitch that that children aren't moral enough, because of the evil liberal media, and that they need to wear sexless clothes, never discover what sex is and most importantly NEVER swear ever ever ever ever ever ever ever.
When children suffer for the latter, well, at least they're going to Heaven!
EDIT on further reading this may not even be a policy. Guy, you're a smart dude, so if your statement on the rules is false you knew it when you said it (unless the article had vague language which is hard to understand, happens to me)
Especially since there is no published or established rule that she broke, plus the fact that she's already earned the diploma, the graduation was just a ceremony, it has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not she's graduated from high school.
The school is being stupid.
The school is enforcing their zero tolerance policy. The "school" actually doesn't make the rules. The elected officials to the school board do. The principal and his or her staff only enforce the rules. I am quite sure that the principal did not come to this decision alone.
So clear this up for me because earlier, Guy was saying something to the effect that there was no published anti-profanity policy on paper. Is there? I'm asking because I honestly don't know, I'm only going by what I've seen earlier in this thread.
I posted a link earlier in the thread that states the school has a zero tolerance policy for profanity.
I understand that, I'm asking if it's a written zero tolerance policy for profanity, or just an "understood" one. Guy claimed that *ALL* schools inherently have an anti-profanity policy whether it's written down or not.
In other words, you have no information. Gotcha.
I posted a link earlier in the thread that the school has a zero tolerance policy for any kind of profanity. Whether or not you consider the word "hell" to be profane is entirely subjective. I don't know how many more times I have to explain this. It doesn't matter what YOU think about people and their beliefs. Some people may have been offended (such as grandparents, etc.), and how YOU personally feel about that or them does not matter. Zero tolerance. You all know what that means, right?
I'm a little far behind in the thread, sorry.
The only link I could find, having to go through about 25 pages of thread, was this:
HS valedictorian denied diploma after saying word
It doesn't say whether or not the ruling is on-paper or just "understood".
It says they have a "strict zero tolerance policy." That would mean that they have a strict zero tolerance policy. Did you expect them to print a copy of it too?
From the link:
"A high school in Oklahoma with a strict zero tolerance policy against profanity may have overreacted a tad in refusing to grant a diploma to a graduating senior (and not just any graduating senior but the class valedictorian) because she said H-E-double hockey sticks in her graduation speech."
As I said before, I remember Guy saying something about the policy being "understood" or something to that effect. That's why I asked in the first place.
Now do you believe that the school had a zero tolerance policy against profanity, therefore this girl broke the rule? Really, what you or I think about it is inconsequential. The school administrators have every right to enforce the rules as they see fit even if people think they overreacted. I'm sure there was a meeting held about this, and this was not some snap decision by the principal. I'll bet they had some complaints from some people, so they took actions that they thought were appropriate, a letter of apology, which is not a severe punishment in any way. I don't understand all the outrage over a child breaking the rules at school in the type of setting in which she did, and having to write an apology letter. An intelligent girl like her should be able to write out an apology letter in 20 minutes. It's not so bad IMO.
Why would you not give the school administrators the benefit of the doubt and assume that, just like every other school in America, the use of profanity by students is not allowed.
It wasn't in the rulebook.
Therefore it did not break a rule
Why didn't the school administrators give the student the benefit of the doubt?
It wasn't in the rulebook.
Therefore it did not break a rule
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?