We Really Do Entrust Our Precious Children To People Like This…

water-noodles

The headline says it all:

North Kansas City School District apologizes for taking away blind child’s cane

Well, maybe not all…

Eight-year-old Dakota Nafzinger, born blind, attends Gracemor Elementary School in Kansas City, Missouri.*  Like many blind Americans, he uses a white cane to maneuver himself through life.

The school staff decided that the boy’s misbehavior on a school bus warranted punishment, so they took away his cane and

GAVE HIM A SWIMMING POOL NOODLE TO USE AS A SUBSTITUTE !!!!!!!!!!!!!

North Kansas City School District Spokeswoman Michelle Cronk explained that the staff was withing its rights to take away his cane, since it was given to him when he enrolled and thus  it was school property. She might as well have said that the kid should feel lucky they gave him one of those neon colored floating pool noodles to use instead, rather than, say, a garden hose or a live anaconda. The cane was taken away  because the child reportedly  hit someone with it. I suppose if his seeing eye dog had bitten someone, they would have taken the dog away, shot it, and replaced it with a guinea pig or a stuffed animal.

“It’s a lot harder with this,” Dakota told reporters, speaking of

THE SWIMMING POOL NOODLE!!!!

he’s now swinging back and forth to help him avoid obstacles.

“Why would you do that?” asked his mother. ” Why would you take the one thing that he’s supposed to use all the time? That’s his eyes!”

Why? Why? Because these are incompetent, cruel, dangerously irresponsible fools, and the schools are full of them.

After the story of Dakota and his noodle appeared on a local news broadcast, a public uproar got the school district’s attention. See, they don’t comprehend ethics, but they know when they are in big trouble. The North Kansas City School District released a statement that read in part:

“The District has reviewed the situation. We regret that a mistake was made in making sure the student was in possession of his cane when he boarded the bus Monday evening. The District has apologized to the family and is working to rectify the situation.”

School officials visited to the child’s home and returned the cane. This does not make it all better. Since it isn’t practical to burn the district’s schools to the ground and sow salt where they once stood, a complete management over-haul, employee review and re-training  is essential. For the training session, the final exam should have the question, “Under what circumstances, if any, is it appropriate to take away a blind child’s cane and replace it with a pool noodle? Explain.”

*This is a correction: I mistakenly assigned this story to the wrong Kansas City. I apologize to the people of Kansas, Missouri…pretty much everyone. Careless and stupid of me. Thanks to Charlie Wilson for giving me the bad news.

___________________________

Pointer: Fred

Facts: Fox4KC

35 thoughts on “We Really Do Entrust Our Precious Children To People Like This…

  1. This is fucking stupid. Just cripplingly, inconceivably… ow. I have a headache thinking of it. If someone punches someone else on the school bus, do you talk to the student? Do you perhaps suspend? Or do you cut his arm off and replace it with a pillow? Of all the stupid things.

    And the cane was school property? Why!? Why the hell was he using a school cane? White canes are 20 bucks on Amazon. I have this feeling that the school REQUIRED him to use their cane, on the same logic that all medications and band aids be administered by the school: Kids can’t be trusted with their own well being.

    This is all part of the variations on the theme I’ve pointed out before: Liberals hate children. They don’t see them as small people, they see children as things. Or maybe pets. They can kill them, leash them, beat them, have underage sex with them (especially if they’re male), and now they can take away their white canes and give them a fucking POOL NOODLE and they don’t see the issue. It’s Bullshit.

    • I can tell you’re pissed. So’m I. I hadn’t seen this story until Jack posted it, but my first reaction, even though my grandson was sitting there, was “Are you fucking shitting me?” Keep in mind I don’t cuss much, but this infuriated me. I have never seen anything this stupid in my life.

  2. I saw the story, thought the school screwed up and in a way I still do but if the kid was using the cane to hit another kid and was additionally using his disability as protection from punishment then a say to hell with him suspend him and take the pool noodle too. I don’t care if he is blind or not, if he is going to act like a little shit and hit kids with his cane he can suffer the consequences, why should he get a special pass? I hate how pc and liberal our schools are but looking at this objectively if he did what they claim he is lucky they just replaced the cane with a pool noodle and didn’t suspend him. Does the noodle make his life harder? Sure but at least the little shit won’t be injuring other kids when he acts out.

    • Seriously?
      Suspend? OK.
      Take away his ability to navigate? NO.
      While I get that some kids act out and get away with things they shouldn’t get away with there is surely a better solution than further handicapping him. If a person hits should we take away their ability to use their arms?

    • Missed this, but answered the same observation by deery thusly:

      The kid’s blind, and he’s eight. He has a stick in his hand all the time, and he apparently hit one kid, once. Even if he had a mad blind cane freak-out, taking his cane away would be 1) the dead last resort, not the first 2) done only after consultation with parents, 3) combined with a suspension, so he isn’t going anywhere with—A POOL NOODLE?? and 4)still the equivilent of taking away a kids artificial leg because he kicked someone.

    • He’s not a little shit. If anyone has the right to call DAKOTA a little shit it would be me, his mother! I’m so tired of people like you and your ignorant comments. He didn’t hit another kid. You might want to know the true story before you spout more diarrhea from your mouth and insult an 8 year old boy. We don’t use his blindness as an excuse nor a crutch in our house. Its a way of life in which this ‘spoiled brat’ is held accountable for his actions. Taking his eyes as a disciplinary tool is not punishment. Its cruel. And yes. My son who has low muscle tone to go along with his bilateral anopthalmia could really give those kids a good wholp. Your ridiculous. I pray that your children never have to know blindness or being bullied or mistreated. And technically I do believe that its now Considered assault to take a blind person’s cane without permission. And no. The parents were not consulted first. And this step dads side… Sure do sound tough behind buttons lil nigga fun u hitt me up… PROBLEM? 8162846453

  3. With you up to the last paragraph, Humble.

    Do you have some “in” with the voting registrar in the area that you can match against the list of names of the school employees and administrators?

    Venting your righteous feelings on the incident and those specifically involved in it is one thing; the rest bears frightening resemblance to a four-year-old’s tantrum indulged in by an out-of-control adult who is headed for a cerebrovascular accident.

    • My view is based on a series of events where it was demonstrated to me, mostly anecdotally, to be true, but with a little bit of empiricism, that in issues pertaining to children, groups that trend liberal tend to approach the situation in ways that offer the child the least autonomy and agency possible.

      And it’s frustrating, so frustrating, because once I started viewing situations involving kids through the lens of “liberals hate children until they become of an age to vote” situations that stunned me before suddenly made sense and I was simply left with anger.

      Abortion is sold as a one person issue. The mother. The baby isn’t a baby, it’s a clump of cells. There are academics who argue that post-birth abortions should be legal up until the age of two, because the child hasn’t formed enough of a concept of self to preclude it.

      Child leashes are becoming more and more common, and when the discussion came up on this site in particular, I was struck on how the people who identified as liberal sided with the parents, and based it on the difficulties of parenting and the people who identified as conservative sided with the children and based it on the idea of human dignity. That we shouldn’t treat children like dogs.

      When female teachers commit statutory rape against their male students there’s a certain contingent of people (which invariably includes their union) that cries bloody murder if the teacher is held accountable, and then there are cases where the rape victim is forced to pay child support. And now, we have an example of teachers abusing handicapped kids. AN example, if anyone thinks this is the only example, they’re not paying attention.

      And so maybe because teachers spend just as much time around children as parents, it makes sense that child abusers would most likely tend to be from those two groups. But it’s not just the actions that have colored my perceptions, but the way those abuses are perceived by the people around them. It’s a culture blind to child abuse. Liberals seem to have this favorite child mentality that bypasses children completely in favor of women and teachers. It’s garbage.

      • Child leashes are becoming more and more common, and when the discussion came up on this site in particular, I was struck on how the people who identified as liberal sided with the parents, and based it on the difficulties of parenting and the people who identified as conservative sided with the children and based it on the idea of human dignity. That we shouldn’t treat children like dogs.

        I suspect that the rationale for child leashes comes from a fear of kidnapping.

        • This discussion has been had. That fear is irrelevant, perhaps the best rationale to leash your child, but at the end of the day, still degrading. I put this on the same level as forcing your boy to wear a dress and hold a sign in order to take a picture and put it on the internet to teach him a life lesson. It’s abuse.

          • “based on a series of events where it was demonstrated to me, mostly anecdotally, to be true, but with a little bit of empiricism, that in issues pertaining to children, GROUPS THAT TEND TO TREND LIBERAL….”

            Let’s see now, Humble: There are these anecdotal series of events based on little provable evidence which tend to support the idea that teachers and school administrators whom you have previously identified as trending to be liberals ARE …
            identified by their inclusion in that group as CHILD-HATERS, ABUSERS, MOLESTERS AND MURDERERS ???

            That’s what you said. Twice. All the mealy-mouthed modifications to the adjectives do not change the meaning one iota.

            You are one mud-brained sick sad sorry cookie.

            What follows doesn’t pertain to you, Talent – you are incapable of reason.

            There is a tendency in this otherwise estimable Ethics blog, particularly in the Comments, to politicize anything that carries a negative connotation with the writer, and to label it according to frequently uninformed opinion, Us and Them-ming by presumed party affiliation, as if every American were a slavering unregenerate fanatic for “the other side”, said side being given any characteristic that would prove a poster’s point. Please! Sometimes it’s just preaching to the choir, which is simply comradely — like ‘niggardly’, ‘comradely’ is not a loaded word unless you supply your own ammunition — but oftentimes politicizing something like, say, parenting, one of the most individualized and unpredictable activities in creation, turning the posts into spiteful, ugly generalizations and degenerate name-calling (example: “mud-brained” line above) that override any civilized discourse. (I borrowed that last phrase from Jack; it’s a good one. I think I’ll keep it).

            Is this not unethical? Is it just the “lefties” who speak, write and live this intensely restricted PC life who practice this “everybody does it, tit-for-tat, cognitively dissonant, saint’s excusing, victim’s distorting, free speech confusion”? That’s just being PC on This Side.

            I am speaking up now because I have much respect for most of the regular commenters here but have been myself afflicted with the Hillary Innoculation up to very recently — actually, having tgt around when I first started paying attention to Ethics Alarms meant I didn’t have to speak up at all — watching one after another post agree with the rest that All of Them are deceitful and brainwashed and don’t wash behind their ears. That’s when the Network cry began to well up in my thoughts and it was either quit opening the website or begin standing my ground, however shaky or unpopular it might be.

            Which is not a challenge, I assure you. I weigh in when I have something to say (perhaps express a bias) that is meant to be a relevant addition or response to blog or comment. I am grateful for being allowed to do so. Which means you won’t hear from me in the midst of any legal (or other area of my ignorance) wrangle, or wholly subjective argument. Unless something like a really baaad pun farts its way out.

            The answer to Jack’s final exam question is easy: When the child is dead.

              • Thank you. Ihonored to oblige. For the most part, I enjoy the commenting part, almost as much as discovering a fresh thought in my head that you have inspired. Though I must admit that once the idea has been floated and mulled over, tested against counter-thoughts, and attached to any random notions that happen to be passing by the frontal lobe at the time, the concept has not only become Mine, but where it’s been, you wouldn’t want it back anyway. Someday I will learn to ‘sign’ in html and then you will get the full message.

            • Excuse me for one second… *stretches his fingers, grabs a glass some ice, and his favorite brand of Rye* Ok… prepared!

              To begin, a lesser man might take some of this personally. But I love it. I really do. This goes back to a point I made previously, where more and more, people become absolutely married to their ideals. They see their views as so sagely, so pure, so obvious, that someone disagreeing with them must suffer from some kind of mental handicap of be otherwise evil. And I really do believe that this trend is much more prevalent among the left; in twitter feminism, in academia, in social justice, in media… The tone is so much more…. Mocking and derisive than it was before. Oh, I’m sure that there is some of that in say… Conservative Religious Fundamentalism… Or Fox News…. But as a net sum, I stand by my point.

              I need to correct you on a few points though, and I’m going to try to keep this civil, with the caveat that if you unload like that again, I’ll feel no remorse in doing the same, and then we can all have a front row seat to otherwise thoughtful discourse devolve into name calling.

              “based on a series of events where it was demonstrated to me, mostly anecdotally, to be true, but with a little bit of empiricism, that in issues pertaining to children, GROUPS THAT TEND TO TREND LIBERAL….”

              Let’s see now, Humble: There are these anecdotal series of events based on little provable evidence which tend to support the idea that teachers and school administrators whom you have previously identified as trending to be liberals ARE …identified by their inclusion in that group as CHILD-HATERS, ABUSERS, MOLESTERS AND MURDERERS ???

              Well first off:.That’s not what I said, and I’ll thank you not to put words in my mouth, my quote, in it’s entirety ended ‘…groups that trend liberal tend to approach the situation in ways that offer the child the least autonomy and agency possible.’ After which I built my case on examples of the most sensational I could think of to prove my point, but were not by any stretch of the imagination everything involved. Then ended it with ‘It’s a culture blind to child abuse. Liberals seem to have this favorite child mentality that bypasses children completely in favor of women and teachers. It’s garbage.’ I stand by all of that.

              Second, at what point do anecdotes not become proof in and of themselves? When they’re properly and scientifically measured? When there’s enough of them together? Aren’t the 24 Cosby rape accusers nothing but a collection of anecdotes that lead to a conclusion? I take offense at the idea that my examples were not also statements of fact. Are you trying to suggest that liberals aren’t in favor of abortion? That abortions statistics aren’t what they are? Are you trying to suggest that parents, teachers and daycare workers aren’t the demographics most likely to be caught abusing children? Are you trying to suggest that in the previous discussion on child leashing, there wasn’t a marked partisan response? Are you trying to sit there with your hands out saying ‘I don’t know where this guys gets it all!’ And pretend that your lack of knowledge refutes anything? Are you really?

              Third, if a group tends to find something more acceptable than another group, it doesn’t mean that everyone in that group necessarily holds that belief. It’s a trend. We’re past that notion, It’s a variation of the ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy (Not all ___ are like that ((even if most are)).) and we have to be able to use those trends to have discussions, it completely negates logical thought to require absolute concrete consensus on every issue for every topic. It’s sophistry. I even made the point of saying that the reason that those groups are most likely to be child abusers of one color or another is because those groups spend the most time with children, and said that what made me feel that liberals hate children isn’t the actions of the parents and teachers involved, but the reactions to them. Children are higher on the Liberal Totem Pole of Protection than straight white men, but just, and fall far below Women, Teachers, and basically every other special interest group.

              There is a tendency in this otherwise estimable Ethics blog, particularly in the Comments, to politicize anything that carries a negative connotation with the writer, and to label it according to frequently uninformed opinion, Us and Them-ming by presumed party affiliation, as if every American were a slavering unregenerate fanatic for “the other side”, said side being given any characteristic that would prove a poster’s point.

              I disagree. What I like about the community here is a diverse sampling. There are a lot of opinions that circulate on here that drastically buck party lines, and I think that’s more because of the relative intelligence of a commenter here as opposed to the general public than anything else. That said, if you think that there isn’t a majority view within party lines, you’re deluded.

              Please! Sometimes it’s just preaching to the choir, which is simply comradely — like ‘niggardly’, ‘comradely’ is not a loaded word unless you supply your own ammunition — but oftentimes politicizing something like, say, parenting, one of the most individualized and unpredictable activities in creation, turning the posts into spiteful, ugly generalizations and degenerate name-calling (example: “mud-brained” line above) that override any civilized discourse. (I borrowed that last phrase from Jack; it’s a good one. I think I’ll keep it).

              Is this not unethical? Is it just the “lefties” who speak, write and live this intensely restricted PC life who practice this “everybody does it, tit-for-tat, cognitively dissonant, saint’s excusing, victim’s distorting, free speech confusion”? That’s just being PC on This Side.

              You missed moving goalposts, and false flag, which I think were important to those paragraphs in particular. But to your point. this goes back to my earlier point about sophistry. Some things ARE. It’s not relative, it’s not an ugly generalization, it just is. And then there’s a spectrum, things that are mostly. Things that are usually. Things that are sometimes. And while it might be more accurate to take every single thing and study it, and determine exactly what it is, it usually isn’t material, and it’s invariably more time consuming. So labels, properly used, are shortcuts that we use to navigate ourselves through life.

              Parenting is not as complicated as you make it out to be. Every child is not in actuality a special snowflake, there are, in fact. millions of children just like them. The variable that effects children the most is parenting. Those first 5 years of life. What do we expose them to? Do we hit them? Do we yell at them? Do they have both parents? Do they lose one? Are they an only child? The oldest? The youngest?

              And to be completely frank: Fuck the idea that no one knows how to raise a child better than their parents. Parents can be cripplingly stupid. There are things that are obviously beneficial activities, and things that are obviously not beneficial to the child. And in the list of things obviously not beneficial, I would put: Killing them, leaving them unattended in cars, beating them, publicly shaming them, and taking away their mobility aids and replacing them with pool toys! And anyone who disagrees with that list, I think, has a fundamental disrespect for the young.

                • I see now why many commenters take the space to copy whole paragraphs at a time verbatim. Rather than trying to summarize. Since I have already done the latter, and stand by it as an accurate argued response (plus commentary on a wider related subject) that was thought out fully and carefully to begin with, I will leave the non-conversation with a full quote, verbatim, from Humble Talent:

                  “This is all part of the variations on the theme I’ve pointed out before: Liberals hate children. They don’t see them as small people, they see children as things. Or maybe pets. They can kill them, leash them, beat them, have underage sex with them (especially if they’re male), . . . .”

                  [my caesura, for emphasis, followed by a good example of who is meant by “they”] . . .
                  “and now they can take away their white canes and give them a fucking POOL NOODLE and they don’t see the issue. It’s Bullshit.”

                  Again — and probably not for the last time — I will try to cut through the stranglehold of crass generalization (that which can kill open discussion as thoroughly as the chokehold killed Eric Garner) and call for an end to unjustified, incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial partisanship in ethical arguments. Ethics is complicated enough as it is.

                  • Oh! Ok…. So this was a drive by smearing, where you can say stupid things, and then ride off into the sunset. Got it. I think I need more Rye.

                    All I can say is that you failed utterly to address anything that I actually said, except a flimsy attempt to prove that I said that Liberals were, and I quote, “CHILD-HATERS, ABUSERS, MOLESTERS AND MURDERERS ” Which is especially weak because you quote me “Liberals hate children. They don’t see them as small people, they see children as things. Or maybe pets. They can kill them, leash them, beat them, have underage sex with them (especially if they’re male),”

                    I stand by that. And “CAN” is the operative word. It doesn’t mean that they all will, it means that the option is there,

                    “and now they can take away their white canes and give them a fucking POOL NOODLE and they don’t see the issue. It’s Bullshit.”

                    And once that option is exercised, if they belong to a liberal protected class, there will always be a stunning contingent of slime to run out of the woodwork and protect them. Perhaps the most stunning example of this is Lena Dunham.

                    “AND THEY DON’T SEE THE ISSUE.”

                    KIND OF LIKE YOU. IT’S BULLSHIT.

                    So that’s your main point. Other things I wanted to mention were:

                    “Since I have already done the latter, and stand by it as an accurate argued response ”

                    It’s obviously less accurate… By definition. Not only did you misquote me, but in the comment before this, you removed context. Especially in a comment board with hundred line comments, it provides a measure of clarity to what you’re responding to. Even if you don’t believe that though, there is nothing WRONG per se with either approach. Don’t be a dick. And don’t stand there tossing rocks at someone’s writing skills and think for a moment you’ve done a thing to discredit their argument. At the very least, some of us here don’t believe that more is less or that obfuscation is clarity.

                    “plus commentary on a wider related subject”

                    How sagely of you. But that’s referred to as moving goalposts. You didn’t disprove what I claimed, you’re basically saying we should ignore it as an inconvenient truth so conservatives and liberals can circle jerk and sing Kumbaya. Move past partisanship! It’s not like we actually hold different views!

                    “I will try to cut through the stranglehold of crass generalization (that which can kill open discussion as thoroughly as the chokehold killed Eric Garner)”

                    Riiiiight. I’m going to accuse someone of making a crass generalization, and then compare my opponent to the cops who killed Eric Garner, and not see a modicum of irony there. This would be the point where I would start to take offense, if I didn’t think you were too stupid to realize what you’d done.

                • http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=social%20justice%20warrior

                  A pejorative term for an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation. A social justice warrior, or SJW, does not necessarily strongly believe all that they say, or even care about the groups they are fighting on behalf of. They typically repeat points from whoever is the most popular blogger or commenter of the moment, hoping that they will “get SJ points” and become popular in return. They are very sure to adopt stances that are “correct” in their social circle.

                  The SJW’s favorite activity of all is to dogpile. Their favorite websites to frequent are Livejournal and Tumblr. They do not have relevant favorite real-world places, because SJWs are primarily civil rights activists only online.

                  #1:
                  A social justice warrior reads an essay about a form of internal misogyny where women and girls insult stereotypical feminine activities and characteristics in order to boost themselves over other women.

                  The SJW absorbs this and later complains in response to a Huffington Post article about a 10-year-old feminist’s letter, because the 10-year-old called the color pink “prissy”.

                  #2:
                  Commnter: “I don’t like getting manicures. It’s too prissy.”

                  SJW: “Oh my god, how fucking dare you use that word, you disgusting sexist piece of shit!”

  4. I don’t think they should have given him the cane back, if it was indeed school property, and he was hitting other kids with it. That would be a huge liability issue when someone turns up with a cracked skull.

    However, they should have suspended him, and called his mother to come pick him up. If, when he returned, he used the cane again to harm another child, then they would have to make arrangements for him to schooled at home. Handicapped kids can be assholes too, and they do require discipline like any other kid. While no doubt they thought the pool noodle thing solved the problem without the need to suspend, in this case, they should have treated him like any other kid who hit another kid with a heavy object and sent him home.

    • The kid’s blind, and he’s eight. He has a stick in his hand all the time, and he apparently hit one kid, once. Even if he had a mad blind cane freak-out, taking his cane away would be 1) the dead last resort, not the first 2) done only after consultation with parents, 3) combined with a suspension, so he isn’t going anywhere with—A POOL NOODLE?? and 4)still the equivilent of taking away a kids artificial leg because he kicked someone.

    • Actually, the bigger liability issue would not be the kid who gets his head cracked open. In fact, the school would have no liability in that at all. Where the real liability occurs would be the kid with the disability who has his rights to an equal education infringed upon due to his lack of mobility. Publics schools are generally immune to most liability except when it comes to protected classes of people. Students with disabilities are one of those protected classes. Suspensions also obviously infringe upon the access of education for a disabled student. With that said, I find it really incredible that there was not one single adult in that entire school building who had the ability to keep a BLIND eight year old from hitting students with his cane. Really? I’m not buying it.

  5. …how was the blind kid hitting someone with his cane?

    I guess on the bus, or even in a classroom, there’s always someone right in front of you.

    I agree with Deery above me: There must be a proper way to punish a blind kid who hits someone with his mobility aid, in the same way if a kid in a wheelchair intentionally rolled over kids’ toes. What I would recommend is he be chaperoned and led around the school by an adult between classes and to the bus and back, rather than giving him a “softer cane.” This seems like first-level thinking right there.

    “This kid keeps hitting people with his cane! What do we do?”

    “Make the cane softer!”

    “uh…”

    • I should amend the hypothetical above to say it refers to a theoretical real problem kid, and doesn’t refer to THIS kid, since he’s only hit another kid once, not multiple times. But isn’t that just like the no-tolerance schools to treat everyone like a multiple offender?

  6. No one has mentioned the most obvious solution. Teach the child not to hit. He is obviously frustrated, and maybe angry, and we all understand how that could happen, but people can learn to handle frustration constructively. He’s not unable to learn. Why turn immediately to the solution that causes him to have even less control over his circumstances?

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.