Unethical Quote Of The Week: Strobridge Elementary Principal Charles Hill

“If we want older kids to not think guns are cool, we need to start early.”

-Charles Hill, Principal of the Strobridge Elementary School in Hayward, California, advocating his school’s toy gun buy-back program.

Cool!

Cool!

I would also nominate this as the most chilling quote of the week, the month, and perhaps the year. It is an admission that this principal, and this school—and, like cockroaches, there is never just one rogue school—are interested not in education and the conveyance of knowledge, but indoctrination, compelling children how to think and what to believe, regardless of the desires of their parents and the values of the nation.

This has been the clear underlying purpose of schools, public and private, since the Sandy Hook tragedy and before. The fact that the Secretary of Education and the President, as well as national leaders of both parties—yes, both parties, as I still presume that freedom of thought is equally valued by anyone worthy of election to high office– have not  emphatically condemned the trend of political indoctrination in the schools is inexcusable.

It is not remotely the function of schools, school boards, principals, administrators or teachers…or, obviously, the local governments they work for and the national governments that provide them partial funding, to make children think that anything “isn’t cool,” other than ignorance, unethical values, irresponsible conduct and poor citizenship. Children should not think unwarranted violence is cool, or the misuse of weapons, carelessness, stupidity and the unjust use of force. They have every right, however, to think guns themselves are cool, whatever the assorted ideologues, dim-bulbs, anti-gun zealots, phobics and weenies teaching them might prefer that they think, all the better to repeal the Second Amendment when they can vote. Children must be permitted this just as they must be permitted to believe that other things are cool, like swords, martial arts, same-sex marriage, gays, explosions, good sex, beautiful women, beautiful men, muscles, the military, the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, secret agents, winning World War II, D-Day, heroism under fire,police, catching the bad guys, killing the bad guys when necessary, comic books, dying for what you believe in, NASCAR, rap music, Quentin Tarentino movies, John Wayne punching an outlaw in the mouth, religion, Jesus, Dan Brown, patriotism, Democrats, Republicans, socialists, environmentalists, tea partiers, lawyers, capitalists, poor people, rich people, white people, black people, Rudyard Kipling, Tony Morrison, Ronald Reagan, Franklin Roosevelt, the Founders, the Beatles, baseball, individualism, feeling good about winning, courage, losing when you’ve done your best, imagination, non-conformity and did I mention guns?

What definitely isn’t cool is schools abusing their power and authority with lame attitude readjustment schemes like toy gun buy-backs. It’s wrong, It’s unethical. It’s offensive to free thought. Will it work? Oh, I doubt it. But it is far more vital to this nation’s safety and survival that we rid ourselves of school administrators like aspiring propaganda minister Charles Hill than the cool guns he fears.

_______________________________________

Pointer: Instapundit

Sources: Mercury News, Huffington Post, ABC News, Legal Insurrection

Graphic: Curious Photos

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.

54 thoughts on “Unethical Quote Of The Week: Strobridge Elementary Principal Charles Hill

  1. Jack haven’t you figured it out yet? Kids don’t listen to school bureaucrats.. Never did never will.

    In fact if he truly wanted to kids to think guns weren’t cool, he should say that guns were cool.

    These people couldn’t cut it as teachers, got an advanced degree and moved into school management. They are a joke not worth taking seriously.

    • You have a point there: From “The Fantasticks”:

      Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh!

      Dog’s got to bark, a mule’s got to bray.

      Soldiers must fight and preachers must pray.

      And children, I guess, must get their own way

      The minute that you say no.

      Why did the kids pour jam on the cat?

      Raspberry jam all over the cat?

      Why should the kids do something like that,

      When all that we said was no?

      My son was once afraid to swim.

      The water made him wince.

      Until I said he mustn’t swim:

      S’been swimmin’ ever since!

      S’been swimmin’ ever since!

      Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh!

      Dog’s got to bark, a mule’s got to bray.

      Soldiers must fight and preachers must pray.

      And children, I guess, must get their own way

      The minute that you say no.

      Why did the kids put beans in their ears?

      No one can hear with beans in their ears.

      After a while the reason appears.

      They did it cause we said no.

      Your daughter brings a young man in,

      Says ‘Do you like him, Pa?’

      Just say that he’s a fool and then:

      You’ve got a son-in-law!

      You’ve got a son-in-law!

      Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh!

      Sure as the June comes right after May!

      Sure as the night comes right after day!

      You can be sure the devil’s to pay

      The minute that you say no.

      Make sure you never say…

      No!

    • Songs aside,

      1.The issue isn’t this particular crack-brained attempt at indoctrination, but the fact that someone entrusted with educating kids thinks its acceptable. who knows what else such an un-American idiot thinks is acceptable? We shouldn’t have to find out.
      2. The people who do this also suspend kids for making guns with their fingers. Of course they are worth taking seriously.

  2. Maybe we should say that most things can be cool outside cruelty and being a deliberate idiot. Listing them may never be complete. But being able to judge cruelty and idiocy are useful skills to teach with the 3 R’s.

  3. Lemme modify what he really meant:

    “If we want older kids to not think, we need to start early.”
    —-Charles Hill, Principal of the Strobridge Elementary School

    • Lemme quote what you said in an earlier thread that is relevant to Mr. Hill’s statement and your expose’ of what he meant:

      “…[H]alf of what is wrong with the gun debate[:] A general attack on the self-reliance of individuals, a general degradation of the belief that people can be good and achieve good and aggressively advance the cause of good independent of authoritarian approval and direction.

      “Erode the notions of individualism, erode the assertiveness and self-starting attitudes that made America great by vilifying people who still believe in those virtues. Slowly cow people into a belief that there is something wrong with them if they have those attitudes, instill those anti-self ideas early on and the only recourse a person has is to believe in the government’s guidance over all things.”

  4. My nephews were playing in my parents’ backyard this weekend. This being June in Texas, and my parents being great grandparents, there were a pair of water guns conveniently available. My sister in law, however, has never let the boys play with guns – and although they were allowed to play with these water toys, we were not supposed to actually call them guns. I forget what term they used instead, but it was decidedly nonviolent. Their dad is in the military – is currently deployed – but they can’t call a water gun a water gun.

    This is not directly to the point of your article, since it’s a parent making a choice rather than the school making it for them. Still, I have to shake my head.

    • The odds of those boys ever being firefighters may be slim, since they may be indoctrinated to avoid things like water cannons – unless, that is, such tools are named something else when the boys’ generation becomes adults, such as…FEMAs – Fire-Extinguishing Material Accelerators. Yes, the Ministry of Truth would approve.

    • My moms (plural) had the same policy. No toy guns and play fighting was absolutely forbidden. My brother and I both bear scars from our illicit fight club nights when we had the house to ourselves and weve both been playing paintball and shooting firearms for most of our adult lives. Hell were trying to start a business around the passion.

      The point of indoctrinating kids against guns is horribly unethical, moreover the methods used to achieve it can have laughably anti-polar results (if its even possible to make little boys stop loving play fighting and tools of the same).

    • I was another child of a “no toy weapons” family. I couldn’t own them, and my parents confiscated any that were brought into the yard (until the offending owner left). I don’t think this was an indoctrination against weapons. I always saw it as “weapons aren’t toys”.

      • How does taking toys say anything about weapons at all? Toy weapons aren’t weapons, ergo they are only toys. I’m sure your parents were wonderful, but that’s a silly policy…and it is indoctrination against guns, arguably. But parents have that right. Schools don’t.

        • Toys are for play, weapons are not for play. Toy weapons bridges a gap that (some people think) shouldn’t be bridged. I did have weapons as a kid. I had a tomahawk and blowgun, but they weren’t for play.

      • Things besides guns that kids must also learn “are not toys”:

        Cars
        Animals
        People
        Ovens/Stoves
        Swords
        Heavy Machinery
        Trains
        Planes

        I am sorry that you were denied toy representations of any of those things as a kid. Assuming that your parents were consistent, of course.

        • Isaac, you make an interesting point here. I don’t have a toy gun problem in my house because I have girls and they are in full-on annoying Disney princess mode – well, and trains. (I hope Disney never makes a show combining the two otherwise I’ll go broke buying all the associated merchandise.) Anyway, I don’t think your example holds. We have toy animals AND real pets. I’m constantly educating my girls about the difference, and how they have to be gentle, not chase them, don’t pet them while they are eating, etc. The same goes for the stove. My oldest loves to “help” me cook, but she knows that only I can use the burners. But I can’t educate them about the difference between real and fake guns – because I can’t let toddlers near a real gun. I grew up in a gun family and I don’t remember having toy guns either. My brother had a toy light saber, but I don’t think he had a toy gun. At some point, my dad introduced him to hunting and target shooting, but he was 12 or so I think when that happened.

        • Why did you separate swords from guns?

          I think the difference might be seriousness. Weapons are designed to inflict harm. None of those others are.

  5. Of course guns aren’t toys- but I always wonder at people who define them as weapons as well. A weapon is something used or designed to harm a human being. Many (most?) guns are sporting equipment, designed to put holes in a sheet of paper, blast clay targets to bits, or put food on the table.

    The baseball bat in my closet is sporting equipment and the tire iron in my trunk is a tool, but if I were to go take one of them and “have a discussion” with my loud neighbors, I’d be susceptible to charges of assault with a deadly weapon. Much the same, it’s a pet peeve that a gun that isn’t made to shoot people and wouldn’t be particularly effective at shooting people, is somehow a weapon just because it COULD shoot someone.

    • Your attempt to redefine “weapon” is pretty silly. If you use a gun to shoot an animal, you absolutely are using it as a weapon.

      Similarly, a weapon that is generally used for practice (shooting targets) is still a weapon.

      • I am a life long martial artist. If I use my abilities to defend myself or others, does that make me a weapon? And how would you go about regulating me? If an intelligent person doesn’t like guns, they don’t buy one. If a fool doesn’t like guns, they don’t want anyone to have one. If an ineelligent person doesn’t believe in God, they don’t go to church. If a fool doesn’t believe in God, then noone should>
        t

        • Legally, in at least some locations, your training could have impacts on an assault sentence similar to if someone used a deadly weapon.

          Regulation: none. I don’t see a need for it. The rest of your post is, well, stupid. If something is bad, simply ignoring it isn’t generally an ethical response.

      • Sure it’s a bit of a devil’s advocate position, but it’s a fun way to make people consider their positions. So you’re saying my bat and tire iron are only weapons if I use them as such but my .22 Rimfire Target rifle (which is so bulky and heavy that it would probably be more useful as a club against a human) is just so automatically dangerous that it’s a weapon no matter what?

        And then when does a knife become a weapon, then? The legal definition (in my state, at least) has to do with the length of the blade and if/how it folds. By those lights a standard kitchen knife is considered a weapon, regardless of its intended purpose- or are only guns so terrible that they are always weapons all the time?

        • Sure it’s a bit of a devil’s advocate position, but it’s a fun way to make people consider their positions.

          Devil’s argument is fun. Your devil’s argument position was stupid.

          So you’re saying my bat and tire iron are only weapons if I use them as such but my .22 Rimfire Target rifle (which is so bulky and heavy that it would probably be more useful as a club against a human) is just so automatically dangerous that it’s a weapon no matter what?

          That your rifle wouldn’t be a good weapon in specific types of combat doesn’t mean it’s not a weapon. I’d say a bat and a tire iron can often be weapons, but their designed purpose is not to be a weapon. The rifle’s designed purpose is to be a weapon.

          And then when does a knife become a weapon, then? The legal definition (in my state, at least) has to do with the length of the blade and if/how it folds. By those lights a standard kitchen knife is considered a weapon, regardless of its intended purpose- or are only guns so terrible that they are always weapons all the time?

          There is no non-weapon purpose to a gun. I don’t like defining knives as weapons based on length and folding ability. That’s a shortcut that was created to make it easier to convict criminals when there wasn’t evidence to commit them of actual crimes. There was probably alot of “think of the children!” involved as well.

          A knife is a weapon if it’s intent is to be a weapon. Messy, but true. There is no other intent for a gun.

            • 1. Someone built a usable gun to be a prop of a gun? I don’t think so.
              2. Collectables are interesting, but I still think the intent of the gun is to be a weapon. A replica that doesn’t work makes sense as a collectable. The gun itself? No. (That people collect rare guns does not change this calculus at all.)
              3. This isn’t close. Intermediate steps in the supply chain aren’t what the object itself is for.

              • 1) standard guns can be chambered with and fire blanks, and conversely some guns intended to fire blanks could be chambered with live ammunition if you found the right type of load.

                2) No, the intent of a collectible gun isn’t to be a weapon, it’s to hang on a wall and look fancy- but no gun enthusiast would buy a totally non-functional gun, even a collectible they never intended to fire a shot through. It’s like fantasy swords that geeks like to hang on their walls- not really made to be battle ready, but nobody would buy it if it didn’t actually have a real blade.

                To Jack’s list, let me reiterate TARGET RIFLES. Nothing about them suits them to use as a weapon. They are over-long, extremely heavy, and have incredibly slow actions. These are all intended to improve their use for putting very precise holes in sheets of paper. I have worked at a rifle range for a dozen years and personally overseen hundreds of thousands (if not over 1 million) rounds fired at nothing but paper and other targets. It is what the guns are explicitly made for.

                • 1) Good point. I should have said that using a pro gun as a stand in for a gun is using it to represent a weapon. Unless Jack and you are suggesting that when we see guns in movies/theatre, we should think of them as props, not representations of guns, I don’t see how this helps you.

                  2) I think you’re backing my point here. Was that intentional?

                  To Jack’s list, let me reiterate TARGET RIFLES.

                  You mean “add”, not “reiterate”, right?

                  Anyway, shooting the rifles at targets is using them as a freaking weapon. Next you’re going to say that fencing foils aren’t weapons.

                  • I am not backing your point on 2. (and forgive my formatting, I really don’t know how to do italics). You say that a non-functional replica makes sense as a collectible, but a functional gun does not. Ignoring those who collect rare/antique guns (which weren’t designed as collectibles, but became them by virtue of scarcity), my counter argument was that even guns made to be collectibles and not fired still tend to be functional guns. A gun enthusiast wouldn’t see the point in having a fake gun, even if it was only ever going to look pretty on his wall. Hence the purpose of those guns, although they are fully functional, is to serve as a collectible decoration and not as a weapon.

                    I phrased my next paragraph poorly- I am adding to Jack’s list, but it is not a new point. I was reiterating my above statement that target rifles aren’t weapons. Bluntly, you are wrong. How can a gun shot at a target possibly be considered a weapon? A weapon is “any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war” (Dictionary.com). While you certainly COULD use a target rifle to those ends, that’s just a circle back to the idea that you could turn any sporting good, rock, or pointy stick into a weapon if you wanted. Do you feel slingshots count as weapons? BB guns? Lawn darts?

                    • Formatting
                      Use angle brackets instead of regular brackets:
                      [i]italics[/i]
                      [b]bold[/b]
                      [cite]italics on own line used mostly for copying other comments[/cite]
                      I don’t know how to do the fun indents.

                      2
                      You say that a non-functional replica makes sense as a collectible, but a functional gun does not.
                      I said that producing a working gun solely to be a collectable non-weapon doesn’t make sense. I didn’t say that collecting working guns doesn’t make sense. I thought my statement was clear: “(That people collect rare guns does not change this calculus at all.)”

                      A gun enthusiast wouldn’t see the point in having a fake gun, even if it was only ever going to look pretty on his wall.

                      Therefore the collectable is intended to be an actual weapon. That seems pretty required.

                      Gun shot at target

                      The only point of a gun is to shoot things. It’s to kill or injure. A gun that only shoots at a target? That’s like a practice blade. It’s still designed to be a weapon and used as a weapon, even if it’s only a stand in for combat. It’s a weapon whether it’s being used against another practice blade or a target.

                      Slingshots are absolutely weapons. So are BB guns. Lawn darts aren’t, but javelins are. I’m not sure what’s difficult about this.

                    • [i]thanks for the formatting tip[/i] , which should be in italics…

                      The only point of firing a gun may be to hit things, but that doesn’t mean it’s to kill or injure. Most competitive shooters I know aren’t even hunters- target shooting is a vastly different skill set. Are you familiar with shooting guns at all? That’s an honest question, not just a “well you don’t understand so shut up.” I think many non-shooters just think of “shooting” as a thing people learn. Quite to the contrary, the skills I put to use in bracing myself on a bench with a 12-pound target rifle to squeeze off maybe 2 rounds a minute at a bullseye 50 feet away, are a world away from the ones I use to find a good place in the woods to wait out a deer and make a standing shot with rapid follow-up if required.

                      I really have no idea what you are basing your definition of “weapon” on. I am using it as, something used to kill or injure a human. Not something that is the same type of object as something used to kill or injure. Why, to you, is a slingshot or BB gun a weapon but a lawn dart isn’t? They all have descended from ancestors used for hunting or for war, but are now used primarily for nonviolent recreation (even though in the hands of someone who had practiced, they could do some real damage).

                    • Use angle brackets (SHIFT-, and SHIFT-.) not regular brackets. I don’t know how to escape the angle brackets, so i had to use something else as placeholder.

                      I am passingly familiar with shooting. Nothing you mentioned has changed my mind. That the skills are not identical for target practice and wooded hunting doesn’t say that the gun is not a weapon when you’re shooting at a target.

                      I really have no idea what you are basing your definition of “weapon” on. I am using it as, something used to kill or injure a human.

                      Therefore, a catapult used on a wall is not a weapon. Therefore, a gun used to shoot an animal is not a weapon. Your definition is insane.

                      Not something that is the same type of object as something used to kill or injure. Why, to you, is a slingshot or BB gun a weapon but a lawn dart isn’t? They all have descended from ancestors used for hunting or for war, but are now used primarily for nonviolent recreation (even though in the hands of someone who had practiced, they could do some real damage).

                      Lawn darts were a close call to me, but the underhand throwing motion suggests, to me, that it wasn’t being used to do damage. I included javelins as something that’s similar in shape to lawn darts, that’s clearly on the weapon side of the line.

                      BB guns are still used to shoot things. Slingshots are still used to shoot things. They don’t have any other purpose.

                      My definition of weapon? Anything that’s being used as a tool of destruction against living things or property that is not yours, anything that is used to destroy not for a constructive purpose, anything that’s primary purpose is to attack. There are likely some edge cases around that, but that’s where I start from. Wrecking ball, not inherently a weapon, but usable as a weapon. Gun: weapon. Sword: weapon. Knife: depends. Slingshot: weapon. Baseball bat: depends…

                    • I really don’t appreciate you saying I have to be insane to hold my opinion, just incidentally. Disagree away, I certainly think you’re wrong, but I somehow manage to not feel you must be mentally ill to not see the rightness that is me.

                      No, property damage isn’t caused by a weapon. A catapault may be called a seige weapon, but that just MAY be because there were generally people on the wall that were getting bombarded- if you’re knocking down your enemy’s empty fortress to make sure he doesn’t repopulate it, that’s just demolitions work.

                      Quite honestly, your definition strikes me as comign from someone eager to over-define the term. Underhanded throwing motion? So pub darts are weapons then… I’m sorry, you may consider a weapon to be anything that can break something without duly sanctioned purpose, but you can’t expect me to believe it- and the law doesn’t either. I come from a part of the country where “mailbox baseball” is practically a recognized sport, and by your point of view those bats are weapons because they are smashing mailboxes- and yet no weapons charges are forthcoming, only vandalism charges, because nothing was brought to bear against people.

                    • II really don’t appreciate you saying I have to be insane to hold my opinion, just incidentally. Disagree away, I certainly think you’re wrong, but I somehow manage to not feel you must be mentally ill to not see the rightness that is me.

                      I didn’t say you had to be insane to hold your opinion. I said the definition you used was insane. There’s a pretty wide gulf there. I don’t appreciate the false accusation.

                      No, property damage isn’t caused by a weapon. A catapault may be called a seige weapon, but that just MAY be because there were generally people on the wall that were getting bombarded- if you’re knocking down your enemy’s empty fortress to make sure he doesn’t repopulate it, that’s just demolitions work.

                      Ugh, no. It’s demolition of someone else’s defenses. That’s an attack.

                      Quite honestly, your definition strikes me as comign from someone eager to over-define the term. Underhanded throwing motion? So pub darts are weapons then…

                      I said I was iffy on lawn darts. Pub darts are definitely weapons. They’re weapons used for a game, but they’re still weapons.

                      I’m sorry, you may consider a weapon to be anything that can break something without duly sanctioned purpose, but you can’t expect me to believe it- and the law doesn’t either.

                      I didn’t say that. If you’re going to strawman my positions, I don’t see the point in talking with you.

                      I come from a part of the country where “mailbox baseball” is practically a recognized sport, and by your point of view those bats are weapons because they are smashing mailboxes- and yet no weapons charges are forthcoming, only vandalism charges, because nothing was brought to bear against people.

                      Weapons charges are normally for illegally having certain kinds of weapons. There are also some modifiers for charges for using a weapon on the commission of the crime, but those tend not to be misdemeanors like petty vandalism. Your logic is wrong.

                  • If you consider a pub dart to be a weapon, then you must be so terrified the scary weapons that surround you that I don’t know how you get through your day. If you’re going to throw around the label “weapon” to mean that huge of a variety of things, rather than the very specific definition of that used in attack or defense, then you’re so wrong you’re not even wrong, and I likewise have no interest in talking to you on the topic.

                    • If you consider a pub dart to be a weapon, then you must be so terrified the scary weapons that surround you that I don’t know how you get through your dayThat there are things classified as weapons around me is not necessarily scary or terrifying. Certain people having certain weapons in certain situations can be scary, but your blanket statement is ridiculous. Heck, I own multiple weapons.

                      If you’re going to throw around the label “weapon” to mean that huge of a variety of things, rather than the very specific definition of that used in attack or defense, then you’re so wrong you’re not even wrong, and I likewise have no interest in talking to you on the topic.

                      You originally claimed your meaning of weapon was a devil’s advocate position. It’s clear that wasn’t true. You actually misuse the word weapon. I’ve backed up my meaning and shown flaws in your arguments for your meaning and your counterarguments against my meaning.

                      Claiming at this point that my point is not even wrong seems disingenuous. You clearly thought you could show it was wrong. All your arguments have been rebuffed.

                      —–

                      Do you know what also shows someone being disingenuous? Silence on points where you were contradicted instead of noting that your arguments were wrong. The lie about what I said, the strawman argument, and your weird weapons charges claim all fall under that category.

  6. If this is the Charles Hill that was a principal in Franklin county Kansas in the 1960’s he is nothing but a maggot and buffoon. He was taken down then, and should be taken down NOW. What a waste of world protein.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.