Haughton Student Is Expelled For Having Midol At School

[LateNight]

I didn't realize this.. but what is really going to do this girl in.. is the fact that another student got a hold of one of the midols. Regardless of whether or not she gave it to the other student, or the other student simply "took it" from her.

Other than that.. I do have a problem with these "absolute" rules. you're telling me.. for example, a straight A student. comes to school with an aspirin , they could get expelled.. I just don't see that being in the best interest of the student.

If it's happened multiple times.. or they are "handing out" pills.. then sure, that's a problem.

They have another rule, a kid gets in a fight, they get suspended.. PERIOD. My oldest son.. who is neither big, nor a bully, nor does he have a temper, and who KNOWS not to get in fights.. has had on an occasion to DEFEND himself... witnessed by multiple eye witnesses.. still got suspended. I mean, what is a father to do.. I couldn't even get mad at him.. even the principal said he didn't start it. But if some other kid is going to start throwing punches.. I can't with a straight face tell my kid to take off RUNNING to go TELL .. you know what I mean ??

[rhertz]

Originally Posted by LateNight

I didn't realize this.. but what is really going to do this girl in.. is the fact that another student got a hold of one of the midols. Regardless of whether or not she gave it to the other student, or the other student simply "took it" from her.

Other than that.. I do have a problem with these "absolute" rules. you're telling me.. for example, a straight A student. comes to school with an aspirin , they could get expelled.. I just don't see that being in the best interest of the student.

If it's happened multiple times.. or they are "handing out" pills.. then sure, that's a problem.

They have another rule, a kid gets in a fight, they get suspended.. PERIOD. My oldest son.. who is neither big, nor a bully, nor does he have a temper, and who KNOWS not to get in fights.. has had on an occasion to DEFEND himself... witnessed by multiple eye witnesses.. still got suspended. I mean, what is a father to do.. I couldn't even get mad at him.. even the principal said he didn't start it. But if some other kid is going to start throwing punches.. I can't with a straight face tell my kid to take off RUNNING to go TELL .. you know what I mean ??

That seems to be similar to the self mutually assured destruction (MAD) policy that we had with the USSR in the nuclear arms race. It really doesn't matter who starts it, both parties loose.......... all parties loose.....

[joepole]

>Other than that.. I do have a problem with these "absolute" rules. you're telling me.. for example, a straight A student. comes to school with an aspirin , they could get expelled.. I just don't see that being in the best interest of the student.

It's not in the best interest of the student, it's in the best interests of the students. Zero Tolerance policies are a good thing because they allow the administration to enforce rules without being charged with discriminating against any particular subset of the population.

Without such a policy when 90% of the students suspended for drug problems were of one particular race, the school would have no defense against charges of favoritism, leading to lack of enforcement, which is a detriment to the entire school. This girl is a casualty of an imperfect system that is better than any known alternative.

[rhertz]

Originally Posted by joepole

It's not in the best interest of the student, it's in the best interests of the students. Zero Tolerance policies are a good thing because they allow the administration to enforce rules without being charged with discriminating against any particular subset of the population.

Without such a policy when 90% of the students suspended for drug problems were of one particular race, the school would have no defense against charges of favoritism, leading to lack of enforcement, which is a detriment to the entire school. This girl is a casualty of an imperfect system that is better than any known alternative.

Zero Tolerance is all fine and dandy for things that are illegal such as guns and illegal drugs. But for an aspirin and other legal modern scientific advances that benefit mankind with little or no side effect, I have a feeling that there is some other motive in the picture, such as making someone's job easier without much consideration for others.

[LateNight]

Originally Posted by joepole

>Other than that.. I do have a problem with these "absolute" rules. you're telling me.. for example, a straight A student. comes to school with an aspirin , they could get expelled.. I just don't see that being in the best interest of the student.

It's not in the best interest of the student, it's in the best interests of the students. Zero Tolerance policies are a good thing because they allow the administration to enforce rules without being charged with discriminating against any particular subset of the population.

Without such a policy when 90% of the students suspended for drug problems were of one particular race, the school would have no defense against charges of favoritism, leading to lack of enforcement, which is a detriment to the entire school. This girl is a casualty of an imperfect system that is better than any known alternative.

"A casualty of an imperfect system" I understand what you are saying.. but what about common sense ?

I don't see how comparing "Tyrone" and his joint to "Mary Beth" and her aspirin has to be the same thing.. Or Lemonjello's aspirin has to be the same thing as John's crack cocaine ?

I understand not wanting to be accused of favoritism.. but what's wrong with every instance being charged on its own merits ?

Is it just a casualty of political correctness that a joint is the same as an aspirin ?

[rhertz]

Originally Posted by LateNight

"A casualty of an imperfect system" I understand what you are saying.. but what about common sense ?

I don't see how comparing "Tyrone" and his joint to "Mary Beth" and her aspirin has to be the same thing.. Or Lemonjello's aspirin has to be the same thing as John's crack cocaine ?

I understand not wanting to be accused of favoritism.. but what's wrong with every instance being charged on its own merits ?

Is it just a casualty of political correctness that a joint is the same as an aspirin ?

I think this is the same absolute logic that is termed "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". For example, you probably can't have fingernail clippers at school or on an airplane because "no blades" are allowed. But how could someone hurt someone else with nail clippers? Cut their nails really really short?? A ball point pen is probably more dangerous as a weapon.

[joepole]

>what's wrong with every instance being charged on its own merits ?

The possibility of inequitable application of the rules.

[rhertz]

Originally Posted by joepole

>what's wrong with every instance being charged on its own merits ?

The possibility of inequitable application of the rules.

What if the rules are flawed or tilted in favor of the enforcer? Too bad? How does an asprin become "against the rules"??