“Now class, I’m not going to say this again—no essays about evil guns, or you’ll be sorry.”
Dewey Christian is an English teacher at Denton High School in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, and on the evidence of this incident, one more example of how our children are being warped by arrogant bullies and fools under the pretense of public education. The teacher told students to write a few sentences about whatever topic they chose—“a fun experience,” one student said. However, when two seniors turned in papers that referenced guns—the Horror!— Christian scolded and humiliated them in front of the class, and told them that they would receive zeros unless they chose a different topic.
Fired, that’s all—that’s what this teacher should and must be.
Here is a high school English teacher who believes his job is to indoctrinate students, under threat of humiliation and poor grades, to believe as he does, by stigmatizing an interest and a topic he doesn’t like. One of the abused seniors’ mother met with Christian and surreptitiously recorded his “explanation.” He had none, other than the fact that there had been incidents involving school violence and well, you know. In a wan statement, the Denton Independent School District tried to defuse the controversy, saying, “The teacher has accepted the paper and apologized to the student for misperceptions. The teacher’s intent was for guns not to be trivialized in any school situation because of recent events.”
Translation: “Our teacher is an idiot and a bully. This is the kind of teacher we hire sometimes.”
Since when was a student writing about any topic “trivializing” it? If the seniors had written about world peace, would Christian have humiliated them and graded them down for that? Furthermore, an apology to the two students wasn’t sufficient, unless it takes place in front of the whole class. Then the teacher should have been required to watch “Django,” and after that he should have been fired, as soon as he stopped shaking.
How dare schools systems hire teachers who don’t understand that their job is not to decide what ideas, opinions and interests are acceptable for students to express according to the teacher’s beliefs in political correctness, partisan dogma, or ideological conformity? To hire such abusers of their position is to endorse thought control and indoctrination. A teacher has no more justification for insisting on student adoption of his political and social views than he would insisting that they adopt his religious views; it is an outrageous abuse of power, and one that requires an offensive degree of arrogance and ignorance to attempt. Any teacher doing something like this even once should be dismissed. Their judgment is ossified; their trustwothiness is nil. This is the rare school no-tolerance policy that is not just reasonable, but imperative.__________________________________
Facts: KDFW
Graphic FITS News
Ethics Alarms attempts to give proper attribution and credit to all sources of facts, analysis and other assistance that go into its blog posts. If you are aware of one I missed, or believe your own work was used in any way without proper attribution, please contact me, Jack Marshall, at jamproethics@verizon.net.
Ethics Alarms 
“How dare schools systems hire teachers who don’t understand that their job is not to decide what ideas, opinions and interests are acceptable for students to express according to the teacher’s beliefs in political correctness, partisan dogma, or ideological conformity?”
What recourse do school systems have, when they seem to be populated by administrators (doing the hiring) who believe it IS their jobe to decide acceptable ideas and the pool of potential teachers to hire from generally hold that notion as well?
My daughter’s teacher (2nd grade) during the election cycle decided to hold a mock election in the classroom. The day it occurred I asked her how everything turned out.
I was informed that Obama won 100% of the children’s vote and was further informed that Romney and Republicans were bad people.
Turns out the platforms the teacher told her students the candidates stood for were “Obama wants all the sick people to be healed for free” and “Romney likes putting puppy dogs in cages on top of cars”.
Hm. That little classroom was certainly a microcosm of what’s wrong with things.
%$$%^&**!!!!
What did you do? This is why I pulled my son out of school to home school. Not to protect him—he’s stubborn as hell, and indoctrination resistant. To protect me from 20 to life in prison.
Well, my first inclination was to fly off on a raging rant. But I quickly assessed that may very well justify her new notion of Republican evil and may prompt her to keep a wary eye on me around our puppy dogs.
So, initially, after internally calming down, I certainly talked to her as best I could in 2nd grader language the differences between the two candidates. I then gave her my opinion of the presidency in general and that in my view it isn’t supposed to be a partisan position but that it has become one. I then informed her that her teacher is a treasure trove of knowledge necessary to enter into the 3rd grade successfully but that if she ever tries to teach politics again that she has my permission to day dream about rough housing with me or dessert or her dolls.
Here’s where I failed. Miserably. I had fully intended to go to the principal of that school and have a talk with him. Unfortunately life got in the way and as the days went by it seemed to me that bringing it up so late would be ineffectual. Of course, better late than never. Ought I to bring it up now?
We would love the home school route as well, but budgets are what they are, and my little nation of 4 has to have a balanced one.
I am curious. Is it too late to confront?
No, it’s not too late. It would have better to confront when things were still relatively fresh in the minds of the other kids. You might not be able to force action now, but informing the teacher (and the principal) might prevent such things from recurring. I’d recommend also writing something up sending it by both email and signature required postal mail after the meeting. Paper trail’s have been helpful in stopping teachers and schools from inappropriately backing religion, so I suspect the same goes for inappropriately backing democrats.
I was outraged when student newspapers were gagged in the 80’s about topics students thought relevant. Alas the Bill of Rights don’t apply so students are told their opinions and curiousity and causes aren’t allowed according to the current political climate. This isn’t a new example of little tinpot dictators. How are you to raise intelligent engaged citizens if they aren’t allowed to talk about significant things? You can’t shelter them from life and expect them to become good citizens magically at 18, unless they think parroting is good.
And the teacher shouldn’t have given the students a blank check, what if the child had written about enjoying big explosions on Mythbusters? Would they have been reported to the ATF?
Alas the Bill of Rights don’t apply so students are told their opinions and curiousity and causes aren’t allowed according to the current political climate.
The Bill of Rights does apply, but their are some limitations based on venue and the legitimate purposes of education. Most of the censorship we hear about is over the line from what is allowed.
Otherwise I generally agree with that paragraph. The last one, no. The proper response isn’t to limit the topics under discussion; it’s to be sane about whatever topic is brought up… just like with a school newspaper.
“To hire such abusers of their position is to endorse thought control and indoctrination.”
Exactly. And your point is..?
Eventually one must face the prospect that it is not merely one or two bad apples being pulled at random. The whole barrel may be bad – not a pleasant prospect, to be sure, but one entirely within the realm of possibility with the evidence gathered thus far.
Good morning,
I’m new here. I think you’re overlooking something. I have no experience of your education system, only what we see on television. But I’d just like to say – teachers are human. They make mistakes like everybody else.What you describe as an outrageous abuse of power, I see as a teacher feeling passionate about something.He got it wrong when he threatened not to grade his students’ papers. That was a juvenile reaction, in my opinion. How old was this teacher? How old were the students? Why wasn’t this incident used as a platform for debate in the classroom? How come students’ parents got involved?
I think calling for this teacher’s dismissal is extreme and as juvenile a response as his own to the kids’ work.
You’re wrong. Professionals are supposed to be trained. They are supposed to be trustworthy. A police officer who loses his temper and executes a prisoner is also just making a human, emotional mistake; so is a defense attorney who reveals that his client is guilty. But professionals aren’t allowed that one mistake, when it is serious enough. The problem is that too many people don’t see trying to bend children to the will of the teacher for ideological purposes as a serious violation of professional ethics. It is. I think it is worse than striking a student, because the damage is more lasting. How old was this teacher? Why does that matter? The job is the same no matter how old the teacher is. The students’ rights and autonomy is the same. How old were the students? They were high school students. What difference does that make, do you think? Why wasn’t this incident used as a platform for debate in the classroom? Huh? Debate what? There was absolutely nothing wrong with what the kids wrote, nothing. What do you think the debate would be about? Do school have a right to make liking guns a thought crime? NO. There is no other side. Should the students have been reprimanded? NO. Did the teacher show that he had no integrity, making an assignment and then punishing students for following it? YES. Tell me: why would any student trust this teacher again? How come students’ parents got involved? Excuse me? Because their children were being abused. What else would have addressed the issue?
Extreme misbehavior and unprofessional conduct need to have extreme consequences, or it will be repeated. This is a teacher who showed that he doesn’t understand what teaching means—it isn’t brainwashing. If a teacher doesn’t know what teaching means, then he is incompetent, and should be dismissed.
Of course, being a Texas school, I’m surprised the teacher didn’t require assignments extolling the virtues of guns followed by ceremoniously firing his pistol in the air and giving extra credit points to every kid that had a gun on them at the time.
Even in very conservative areas, teachers enforce very liberal positions in class. It may be Texas, but the teachers would been considered left-wing even if they were in Massachusetts.
I know. I’m from Fort Worth. My cynicism was very contrived. Here in Texas education is controlled solidly by the Left. Which is why we’ll probably be a purple state in 12 years and blue after that.
Until it is time to get textbooks.
Or so DKos and such sites tell me.
Educators tend to be left leaning. There’s a pretty solid correlation there due to the requirements of teaching, required education, and pay levels.
This has been true for decades and decades, and occurs in all states. It may seem like liberal teachers beget liberal students, but if that were true, there wouldn’t be red states. A more reasonable explanation for the purpling of Texas is (1a) the growth of Austin and San Antonio, (1b) the migration of blue staters to these cities (heck, I considered moving to Austin for a job), (2) immigration and the higher birth rate of catholic latinos, and (3) the rightward move of the republican party.
“This has been true for decades and decades, and occurs in all states. It may seem like liberal teachers beget liberal students, but if that were true, there wouldn’t be red states.”
Assuming that all liberal teachers overtly preach liberalism all the time to all their students and have 100% effect on the students bringing about immediate conversion. That math equation has too many 100%’s.
No, but as you pointed out, an overwhelming majority of teachers are left leaning, and generally I’ve noticed that they are the one’s more likely to impart left leaning ideas to students.
So yes, the effect is small each year, but builds and builds.
1b) yes I’m familiar with the locust effect of Lefties departing the bleak hell-holes they created through Leftist ideas and moving to more responsible states where things are so dismal. Only they don’t leave their ideas, then they descend and ruin the good states too.
2) this won’t be a problem once conservatives open communication. But it will take a massive outreach to break past the solid control of the false narrative perpetuated by the Left Leaning Main Stream Media (but I repeat myself).
3) I’ve hear that bullshit from countless Leftist’s who are merely trying to normalize the Democratic party’s wild swing to the Left, even further than FDR could have possibly imagined. I bet you are one of the sheep who bleat on that Obama has ruled…ahem…presided from slightly center-right.
aren’t so*
So yes, the effect is small each year, but builds and builds.
No. Teacher’s have always been generally leftward leaning. Whatever affect is happening now would have occurred equally for previous generations. At least, that’s the argument I made. If 80% leftward leaning teachers turned out 40% leftward leaning people in the 50s, then the same 80% leftward leaning teachers would turn out 40% leftward leaning people today.
1b:
Really? You seem to have a completely screwed up idea for why the people move. I suspect that’s confirmation bias. You think leftward policies are bad and rightward policies are good, therefore, if people are leaving leftward areas for rightward areas, it’s because of the results of the leftward policies.
Aside from being invalid logic, there is actually clear evidence to the contrary. (1) The “bleak hell holes” you assume exist, don’t. People are still migrating to the coasts and the blue cities. (2) The reason lefty people are supposedly invading these righty areas is because the areas aren’t actually that righty. They are attractive because they are pretty lefty, and since they’ve become more lefty, that has caused more right-leaning people to flee…creating more job openings than in cities that have traditionally been blue.
2
What now? Polls show that Latinos are informed about republican party policies and democratic party policies. There’s no left stranglehold on communication. The demonization of Latinos by the right is the problem for Latinos. When the xenophobia is cut out, Latinos lean right. The right has only themselves to blame here, and, based on how the right’s positions have evolved in the last few years, it seems unlikely the right is going to course correct for the Latino vote anytime soon.
3
This is just beyond ridiculous. When the ACA was being debated, did you not see all the charts of republicans who were against the reforms as evil now, but had pushed for the exact same reforms in the 90s? Obama started the healthcare discussion from the 90s congressional republican ideas.
How about the repeated demonization of Obama statements as socialist…when he’s just repeating Saint Reagan’s speeches.
You’re denying reality.
“Teacher’s have always been generally leftward leaning.” -TGT
False. It wasn’t until the late 60’s and early 70’s that the Left began inundating college campuses in ernest and slowly becoming the demagogues you hear of. Prior to that things were relatively balanced — more importantly demagoguery was avoided as counter-professional.
More recently than that do you see the upswing in demagoguery in primary schools as well. So, my assertion still stands.
1b
If you can’t discern light-hearted hyperbole, I’m afraid you are lost.
2
Please find me a xenophobic policy by the right: you know, that states to the effect “We don’t like hispanics”. You won’t find one. All you will find is policy that has been spun by the Leftist media into alleged xenophobia. You are also being dishonest (a trademark of yours) when you pretend that the MSM is not almost wholly occupied and run by Leftists and is dominatingly overpowered by the same.
3.
More misinforming spin. What Obama and the Left pushed through with Obamacare only barely has the appearance of an idea the heritage foundation proposed in the early 90’s. To be clear on this: the heritage foundation was asked to propose ideas to reform Medicaid (a Leftist intrusion into the health-care market). Among several ideas it brainstormed (you see, think-tanks do this) was an individual mandate idea (because it was asked for an option that included this). As far as I can read, their notion used language to try and move the system more to a free-market friendly system, not what Obama created. The fact that it came from a conservative think-tank does not make it a necessarily conservative idea since it came in a package of ideas. Several Republicans did indeed support the notion in a bill (along with several democrats, so not quite a Republican idea) ONLY SO FAR as it was a closer to right-wing option, but not on the right-side of the spectrum, than what several other politicians and think-tanks had been advancing. No, individual mandate is not a “Right wing” idea. It is certainly Left wing as it falls under government intrusion into economics. Nor was it wildly popular among conservatives at the time, further proof that it was not a conservative idea.
No, back then, as now, it was a Leftist idea, strangely enough entertained by several people who are generally conservative about everything else only because they were crafting something a little less Left-wing than what was being crafted by others at the time.
As for claiming Obama is practically a Reagan-ite, at this point, you aren’t just dumb, you are truly a liar. Only a damned fool or a liar would claim “oh his speeches are like Reagan’s, he must be conservative”. You can talk a good game, but how you play that game is what shows your true colors. Plus, we all know that most presidential speeches are for all intents and purposes identical to each other in platitudes and generalities. You are dumb if you think philosophies pushed by Obama remotely mirror the political philosophy of Ronald Reagan.
This paragraph–>No, back then, as now, it was a Leftist idea, strangely enough entertained by several people who are generally conservative about everything else only because they were crafting something a little less Left-wing than what was being crafted by others at the time.
Should read: No, back then, as now, it was a Left-leaning idea, strangely enough entertained by several people who are generally conservative about everything else. But they crafted the idea only because it was something a little less Left-wing than what was being crafted by others at the time, in order to counter that proposal. The justification being- if it seems like a major push for a government incursion into the market it inevitable, try to make it as market friendly as possible.
There are two points I disagree with here: that the teacher was attempting to “indoctrinate” and that “zero-tolerance” policies against indoctrination would be appropriate. The situation appears to be a teacher that over reacted to the mere mention of guns in the stressful school setting following Sandy Hook. The only evidence that he was indoctrinating is an accusation from the mother that is unreliable. Zero-tolerance policies against teachers espousing their own views to students, would be inappropriate, as such unsubstantiated accusations as the mother in this story could lead to unwarranted dismissals.
The teacher was trying to protect his job by coming down hard in response to the gun-related stories. Schools have to take extra “precautions” in the wake of Sandy Hook, and the atmosphere is more stressed than usual. If the school already had a “zero-tolerance” policy regarding weapons, merely discussing weapons casually in class could get the teacher sacked in such an environment. He just so happened to work for a district that had common sense (unlike many other districts), that wouldn’t have fired him for allowing “innocuous” stories involving guns. That same district also had enough common sense to not fire him for trying to protect his job. His overreaction, though wrong, is not enough to be fired over. For all we know, the student’s laughter may have been at the teacher’s inappropriate reaction, more than at the students scolded.
The only evidence that the teacher was trying to “indoctrinate” an anti-gun ethos comes from the mother of one of the scolded student. To support her claim, we have only an unsubstantiated partial transcript of the mother meeting with the teacher (who herself may have unethically recorded the meeting without the teacher’s knowledge). The article describes the mother rudely talking over and interrupting the teacher’s explanation in the video. The only snippet of the teacher’s explanation we were given is that he was concerned because of past violence in schools. Amazingly, this parent walks away, saying that her child was in the right and the teacher in the wrong. The description of the video is not substantiate the mother’s claim that the teacher’s reaction was motivated by anti-gun beliefs.
To me, this sounds like a teacher being over sensitive to the climate post Sandy Hook. He was wrong to react the way he did, but there is no evidence to support firing him for “indoctrinating”. It seems to be a stressful work environment that provoked the teacher; it would be unethical to increase the stress with more “zero-tolerance” policies.
God, where do I even start…
You mean the classroom? This was not a “stressful” setting, it was this dolt’s normal classroom.
In a word, fucking bullshit. If you could even begin to explain how mocking students and giving them zeroes for papers on guns is “protecting his job”, then you are either far smarter than any of us or – more likely – you are far crazier than I originally assumed.
… This just hurts my brain, that you think this is how such policies work.
For the record, it isn’t, they don’t, and you are starting to scare me. You don’t VOTE, do you?
Again, bullshit. Teachers – especially those who have achieved tenure – are exceedingly difficult to fire, requiring a lengthy paper trail for them to be let go. “Common sense” had no part in this. Also, your word-use and scare quotes are starting to betray just a hint of your bias. Just a head’s up.
Oh. Well then. That’s different. So long as the only person who found the mocking funny was the authority figure tasked with the education of the students, that’s just fine then. Does this mean a teacher can make fun of gay students, so long as the other students don’t laugh with the teacher?
The bottom line is this – the teacher took HIS views, and actively forced them upon his students. That is what indoctrination is.
Had the teacher simply said “no papers on guns, not so soon after Sandy Hook, ok?” that would be one thing, but that isn’t what happened, is it? The teacher took papers about guns, mocked the students for doing so, and gave them zeros. As for you “we have no evidence”, I guess you never watched the video where the teacher explains himself.
Then again, I suspect that if you have watched it, you would have agreed completely with his asinine reasoning…
Bingo, Bravo, Yahtzee, Spot on, Swish!
Thanks, I couldn’t have done this better myself, but if I tried, I’d be getting those “why are you so mean when you are preaching about ethics?” comments I love so much.
I can, if nothing else, be relied upon to be mean.
Rich doesn’t need my defense, but this is just too easy:
You mean the classroom? This was not a “stressful” setting, it was this dolt’s normal classroom.
The response to paper guns, violent drawings, and essays including violence belies your point. I do agree that Sandyhook wasn’t the catalyst for this issue with everything gun or violence related, it just further accelerated the problem.
… This just hurts my brain, that you think this is how such policies work.
For the record, it isn’t, they don’t, and you are starting to scare me. You don’t VOTE, do you?
This just hurts my brain that you think this isn’t how such policies work.
For the record, it is, some do, and you are startign to scare me. You don’t VOTE, do you?
Unlike you, I’ll add something other than snark. This isn’t by any means the first case of writings being treated as violence or weapons:
I don’t want my comment to be held automatically, so here’s just 2 examples. Google is your friend.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/28/courtni-webb_n_2376833.html
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Goin-Postal-essay-gets-student-suspended-3091725.php
In a word, fucking bullshit. If you could even begin to explain how mocking students and giving them zeroes for papers on guns is “protecting his job”, then you are either far smarter than any of us or – more likely – you are far crazier than I originally assumed.
You mean like was already done? “Schools have to take extra “precautions” in the wake of Sandy Hook, and the atmosphere is more stressed than usual. If the school already had a “zero-tolerance” policy regarding weapons, merely discussing weapons casually in class could get the teacher sacked in such an environment. ”
There’s a fine line between mocking and chastisement.
Again, bullshit. Teachers – especially those who have achieved tenure – are exceedingly difficult to fire, requiring a lengthy paper trail for them to be let go. “Common sense” had no part in this. Also, your word-use and scare quotes are starting to betray just a hint of your bias. Just a head’s up.
Fired is probably too strong. Disciplined so that teaching is incredibly hard? That’s more like it. Like making every word of every lessen plan subject to approval. The overall point holds though. This school appears to have common sense, but after some of the other school stories, it’s reasonable to think a school wouldn’t have common sense.
Oh. Well then. That’s different. So long as the only person who found the mocking funny was the authority figure tasked with the education of the students, that’s just fine then. Does this mean a teacher can make fun of gay students, so long as the other students don’t laugh with the teacher?
You’re insane. There was no talk of the authority figure finding the mocking funny. The suggestion was that the students laughed at the stupidity of the teacher. I can say that I have witnessed such occurring, so I don’t find this any less likely than the students laughing as piling on the students.
The bottom line is this – the teacher took HIS views, and actively forced them upon his students. That is what indoctrination is.
Hanlon’s razor takes precedence here. I think the no tolerance policies are de facto indoctrination. This looks like it’s just an extension of that.
Rich is wrong, AM is dead on.
“The response to paper guns, violent drawings, and essays including violence belies your point. I do agree that Sandyhook wasn’t the catalyst for this issue with everything gun or violence related, it just further accelerated the problem.”
No it doesn’t. Every classroom didn’t become instantly “stressful” to sane teachers because of one unpredictable incident. This wasn’t caised by stress, it was caused by stupidity.
… This just hurts my brain, that you think this is how such policies work.
For the record, it isn’t, they don’t, and you are starting to scare me. You don’t VOTE, do you?
This just hurts my brain that you think this isn’t how such policies work.
For the record, it is, some do, and you are starting to scare me. You don’t VOTE, do you?
Unlike you, I’ll add something other than snark. This isn’t by any means the first case of writings being treated as violence or weapons:
I don’t want my comment to be held automatically, so here’s just 2 examples. Google is your friend.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/28/courtni-webb_n_2376833.html
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Goin-Postal-essay-gets-student-suspended-3091725.php
Huh? the fact that teachers have misapplied “no-tolerance” policies does not begin to show that any teacher, ever, has been “sacked” for not punishing student for mentioning guns in an essay, which is what Rich suggested motivated the teacher in this case.
No it doesn’t. Every classroom didn’t become instantly “stressful” to sane teachers because of one unpredictable incident. This wasn’t caised by stress, it was caused by stupidity.
It’s like you didn’t even read my response or Rich’s actual argument. You don’t have to call it stress. Pressure works as well. I also didn’t back a single event doing it. As I said, this slide has been ongoing.
Huh? the fact that teachers have misapplied “no-tolerance” policies does not begin to show that any teacher, ever, has been “sacked” for not punishing student for mentioning guns in an essay, which is what Rich suggested motivated the teacher in this case.
GARRRRR. Please reread my response. I didn’t back the threat of “firing”. I specifically declaimed that.
No, it proves my point. That teachers and school administrators are utter morons and over-react is no excuse for someone else to over-react. Rich’s inability to deal with reality doesn’t make it OK for you to have a falling out with sanity too.
Your point was that it was indoctrination, not stupid no tolerance. This shows that the moronity applies to no tolerance.
Amazing, you found two cases of students talking about actually committing violent acts, and applied it to a case where guns were the general subject of papers – papers that did not suggest any intention towards violence at all.
Do you even know what we are talking about here?
Did you even do more than cursory look? In neither case was the student suggesting they would do violent acts.
“Extra precautions” like armed guards, and refinement of plans incase a shooter does come onto the grounds, not banning the mere mention of guns, especially not in a fucking high school where one would hope that debate and discussion of current events would take place to help encourage and foster an ability to have rational discussions about such things later in life. And again, no – zero-tolerance policies do not work that way – and if they do, they are fucking retarded and whoever wrote them and put them in place should be beaten with baseball bats.
Yes, zero-tolerance policies are fucking retarded. You seem to have thought they made sense. Now that you understand that, can you drop the insinuation that this was anything more than no-tolerance stupidity?
Also the discussion of your choice of extra precautions was a non sequitur. This was quoted as a direct response to your desire to have Rich explain to you how this could be covering the teacher’s ass.
Also, you seriously need to work on how you fucking quote stuff. Shit be confusing as hell, dude.
Yes, that was bad quoting. It was a one-off.
So unlikely, so very rare as to effectively never happen.
It’s a standard threat/possibility at badly run schools. I can think of a half dozen instances of it that I know about…and I’m not even a teacher. (Unfortunately, I can’t cite them. Talk to some people you know that are teachers. If you hit a couple different schools, it’s likely to come up.)
However, a teacher so unhinged as to mock students openly for ANY reason should not be in the classroom. Period.
Mocking isn’t unhinged. I generally don’t back it in a non-secondary school setting, but it’s not signature significance.
And if you could fucking read, you’d know that what you think I said and what I actually said are two very different things. If you are mocking someone, you clearly find it funny yourself, otherwise why are you doing it – to just hear yourself talk? My counter-example is directly on point; the claim that a teacher mocking the students because the rest of the class did laugh with the teacher would never be accepted if you changed “wrote about guns” to “being gay”. Never in a million years. Any teacher that did that would have bounties put on his head, and rightly so – such conduct would be inexcusable, just like it is in this case.
Mocking does not imply funny. I mock ridiculous positions all the time. It’s an argument technique just like hyperbole. I guess I shouldn’t have given you the benefit of the doubt that you misunderstood Rich.
Your example is changed and new. Previous back and forth:
Rich: For all we know, the student’s laughter may have been at the teacher’s inappropriate reaction, more than at the students scolded.
AMS: Oh. Well then. That’s different. So long as the only person who found the mocking funny was the authority figure tasked with the education of the students, that’s just fine then. Does this mean a teacher can make fun of gay students, so long as the other students don’t laugh with the teacher?
—
You misinterpreted Rich to say the teacher found it funny. You’ve now added on the idea that the teacher did it because the kids found it funny. Your original example was…well, it doesn’t parse. There’s no agreement between the pieces. Your new example is a strawman. Nobody is suggesting that the mocking was okay. It’s also an invalid comparison. Mocking what someone believes is different from mocking who someone is.
Only because you have no idea what zero-tolerance policies actually are and how they work.
Please tell me you don’t vote. Please God in heaven, tell me you don’t vote…
You’re the one who didn’t understand the stupidity of no tolerance policies, not me. It might help if you realized that teacher’s are required reporters for things like signs of abuse and dangerous behavior. The no tolerance policy has shown itself to be a slipper slope (First it was actual weapons, then it was replicas, now it’s even imaginary pretend guns), and we have seen writings to be considered against the weapon/violence rules. This is a logical extension of the stupidity.
You are ACTIVELY too stupid to talk to any more. I can feel my IQ dropping as I read what you write…
No, it proves my point. That teachers and school administrators are utter morons and over-react is no excuse for someone else to over-react. Rich’s inability to deal with reality doesn’t make it OK for you to have a falling out with sanity too.
Amazing, you found two cases of students talking about actually committing violent acts, and applied it to a case where guns were the general subject of papers – papers that did not suggest any intention towards violence at all.
Do you even know what we are talking about here?
“Extra precautions” like armed guards, and refinement of plans in case a shooter does come onto the grounds, not banning the mere mention of guns, especially not in a fucking high school where one would hope that debate and discussion of current events would take place to help encourage and foster an ability to have rational discussions about such things later in life. And again, no – zero-tolerance policies do not work that way – and if they do, they are fucking retarded and whoever wrote them and put them in place should be beaten with baseball bats.
Also, you seriously need to work on how you fucking quote stuff. Shit be confusing as hell, dude.
So unlikely, so very rare as to effectively never happen.
On this I agree – they told this whack-job that that shit doesn’t fly. However, a teacher so unhinged as to mock students openly for ANY reason should not be in the classroom. Period.
And if you could fucking read, you’d know that what you think I said and what I actually said are two very different things. If you are mocking someone, you clearly find it funny yourself, otherwise why are you doing it – to just hear yourself talk? My counter-example is directly on point; the claim that a teacher mocking the students because the rest of the class did laugh with the teacher would never be accepted if you changed “wrote about guns” to “being gay”. Never in a million years. Any teacher that did that would have bounties put on his head, and rightly so – such conduct would be inexcusable, just like it is in this case.
Only because you have no idea what zero-tolerance policies actually are and how they work.
Tell me you don’t vote. Please God in heaven, tell me you don’t vote…
Pingback: ~~WORD OF THE DAY~~ | YouthVoicesTT
Pingback: Are the super wealthy and states strangling the world and themselves? | Jesse Talks Back
Pingback: Why do the schools insist on drugging our children - Greed In America