6-year-old expelled over Cub Scout utensil

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Of course there are -- many, many differences. In fact, believe it or not, I agree with you that there isn't likely a due process issue here.

That doesn't change the fact that those criminal cases show why simply saying it was policy and he violated the policy isn't a due process analysis at all.

I don't recall saying it WAS a due process analysis.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

Yeah isn't MC a member of the Supreme Court Bar?

And your point?

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by SydneyK

Wow. It's pretty gutsy (read: ignorant) for a law student to call out someone with professional accomplishments the likes of MysticCat's.

Actually it isn't. After all, a majority of the people around here seem to feel that they can call out people in our government who have far more experience than they do in handling certain matters.

And if you notice, MC did say that I was right about the differences and the fact that there really isn't likely a due process issue at stake here.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

Actually it isn't. After all, a majority of the people around here seem to feel that they can call out people in our government who have far more experience than they do in handling certain matters.

You mean like the people on here who called out the Bush Administration about interrogation tactics, without being privy to the precise intelligence information?

(Not saying I support them, just pointing out that the "first-hand experience cannot be questioned" argument cuts both ways)

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

You mean like the people on here who called out the Bush Administration about interrogation tactics, without being privy to the precise intelligence information?

(Not saying I support them, just pointing out that the "first-hand experience cannot be questioned" argument cuts both ways)

I didn't see those posts so I don't know what was said.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

But how do the officials know that all he intended to do was eat with it? How do officials know that someone else might not have grabbed the knife and used it in a harmful way. The bottom line is that kids should not be allowed to bring weapons to school despite their actual intentions for doing so. I prefer for schools to be strict about this than to let it ride and find that chaos results. And if the decision is made on a case-by-case basis, then you run the risk of discriminatory practices settling into place.

There was nothing confusing about the policy. And no one can argue ignorance as an excuse because parents and children are expected to know these policies. If they are applying it to everyone across the board, then again, there is no problem.

I disagree with your conclusion, and I think building level administrators should be permitted a great deal of discretion in how they handle things. If we come to suspect they abuse that discretion or are incompetent, then we deal with that.

However, I acknowledge that one's experience in school shapes one's perception of this issue a lot. If your school was basically safe, competent, and as non-discriminatory as humanly possible, it makes a lot more sense to say that blanket policies about boy scout knives are clearly stupid.

On the other hand if you went to or taught at Dysfunction Junction H.S., you know why the institution is better with blanket policies that don't allow administrators to undermine the limited about of discipline that is consistently enforced.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

I don't recall saying it WAS a due process analysis.

You said:

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

And I fail to see how his 14th Amendment due process rights were violated. It was a school policy. He violated it. So what if he is six? They knew that 6 yr olds would be included in the group affected by the policy.

Usually, when someone makes a statement ("I fail to see how his 14th Amendment due process rights were violated.") and then immediately gives reasons ("It was a school policy. He violated it. So what if he is six? They knew that 6 yr olds would be included in the group affected by the policy."), you can reliably predict that people are going to interpret the reasons you gave as your reasons for the statement -- i.e., the reasons you don't think 14th Amendment rights were not violated, i.e., your analysis.

But go ahead. Tell me I'm twisting what you said, because that's the way it always goes.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

You said:
Usually, when someone makes a statement ("I fail to see how his 14th Amendment due process rights were violated.") and then immediately gives reasons ("It was a school policy. He violated it. So what if he is six? They knew that 6 yr olds would be included in the group affected by the policy."), you can reliably predict that people are going to interpret the reasons you gave as your reasons for the statement -- i.e., the reasons you don't think 14th Amendment rights were not violated, i.e., your analysis.

But go ahead. Tell me I'm twisting what you said, because that's the way it always goes.

You know folks...I am just an average Joe here, legal jargon aside...but back to what ForeverRoses and I were alluding to earlier...whatever happened to simply calling the parents to the school and having a private discussion with the admin and said parents and K.I.M?

Have we become that paranoid a society that we have to get the law involved for everything?

Times like this (not to mention the fact the we need crash helmets for kids with Big Wheels) is why I DON'T want kids.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I disagree with your conclusion, and I think building level administrators should be permitted a great deal of discretion in how they handle things. If we come to suspect they abuse that discretion or are incompetent, then we deal with that.

However, I acknowledge that one's experience in school shapes one's perception of this issue a lot. If your school was basically safe, competent, and as non-discriminatory as humanly possible, it makes a lot more sense to say that blanket policies about boy scout knives are clearly stupid.

On the other hand if you went to or taught at Dysfunction Junction H.S., you know why the institution is better with blanket policies that don't allow administrators to undermine the limited about of discipline that is consistently enforced.

Well, if people don't advocate for a blanket policy in this regard, they certainly need not complain about all of the school violence that takes place. As I said before, when you start to give administrators discretion, typically you start seeing discrimination and racial profiling. And at that point it is difficult to start "dealing with it" because that's the kind of subtle ting that really is difficult to handle.

I think it is funny that people really are trying to make the school officials out to be bad guys here. In this day and age, with kids as violent as they are, something needs to be done. If I ever had kids, I would feel much better knowing they are at a school that takes that kind of thing seriously.

I suppose it doesn't help that the media is blasting his picture everywhere and constantly labeling him as a little first grade cub scout. Would your reaction have been the same had he been labeled as a little first grade gangbanger who wanted to bring his little utensil to school to eat with it?

[deepimpact2]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33289924...-today_people/

If you read the article. you will notice that it states why the school had this zero tolerance policy in the first place: they wanted to avoid racial discrimination.

[UGAalum94]

I'd be willing to take my changes with six year olds who brought eating utensils to school, including six-year-old "gang bangers."

Zero tolerance regardless of circumstances is an irrational policy. His "weapon" was no more dangerous that scissors and likely little more dangerous than a pencil or pen. He didn't use it as a weapon, so referring to cutlery as weapons is a little goofy.

Having discretion doesn't have to equal racial discrimination. It's a possibility sure, but it's a possibility almost always.

I think we'd be better off allowing the people entrusted with the job of school level discipline handling these cases, especially at the elementary school level. If they racial discriminate, they face the consequences for that.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

You know folks...I am just an average Joe here, legal jargon aside...but back to what ForeverRoses and I were alluding to earlier...whatever happened to simply calling the parents to the school and having a private discussion with the admin and said parents and K.I.M?

Exactly.

The good thing is that overreacting isn't standard protocol across school systems and schools. There are schools that still call the parents FIRST whether the kid is 6 or 16.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33289924...-today_people/

If you read the article. you will notice that it states why the school had this zero tolerance policy in the first place: they wanted to avoid racial discrimination.

LOL. This is what happens when a nation becomes chicken shit and scary.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

You know folks...I am just an average Joe here, legal jargon aside...but back to what ForeverRoses and I were alluding to earlier...whatever happened to simply calling the parents to the school and having a private discussion with the admin and said parents and K.I.M?

Have we become that paranoid a society that we have to get the law involved for everything?

Times like this (not to mention the fact the we need crash helmets for kids with Big Wheels) is why I DON'T want kids.

Columbine happened. White upper middle class kids killed white upper middle class kids and all of a sudden, zero tolerance everywhere.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I'd be willing to take my changes with six year olds who brought eating utensils to school, including six-year-old "gang bangers."

Zero tolerance regardless of circumstances is an irrational policy. His "weapon" was no more dangerous that scissors and likely little more dangerous than a pencil or pen. He didn't use it as a weapon, so referring to cutlery as weapons is a little goofy.

Having discretion doesn't have to equal racial discrimination. It's a possibility sure, but it's a possibility almost always.

I think we'd be better off allowing the people entrusted with the job of school level discipline handling these cases, especially at the elementary school level. If they racial discriminate, they face the consequences for that.

O God no...please don't tell me that the race card was played EVEN in this thread..

**Throwing his hands up....**

....done.