Is It Any of Your Business When Someone Else Doesn't Follow the Rules?

Great Debates
1

I’m not talking about breaking laws, just following rules.

This issue arose on a mothering messageboard, and I wondered what Dopers had to say on the issue. Ann’s 4-yr-old daughter, Mary, attends a very expensive preschool that aims to promote healthy eating habits among the children. This particular value is very important to Ann, and is one of the reasons she wants her daughter to attend this school.

So the Official Parents Handbook says very clearly that kids are to bring only healthy food for snacks and lunch. The children dine together, but each child brings and eats their own food.

However, there’s one overweight little boy in Mary’s class, Jimmy, who brings McDonald’s chicken nuggets and fries as his lunch and Cheetos as his snack, on a daily basis.

Ann is not aware of any eating disorder issues that would prevent Jimmy from eating apples along with the rest of the kids. Earlier this year Jimmy slimmed down a bit, but now he’s more overweight than ever and his parents have expressed some concern that he not lose weight.

I’m wondering if there’s a medical condition that would necessitate junk food and extra weight for a 4-yr-old. I do know that some small children WILL starve themselves rather than eating food they don’t like, but this child doesn’t seem to be in any danger from starvation.

On the one hand, it’s clearly none of Ann’s business what Jimmy eats for lunch and why; his parents MIGHT be lazy morons who don’t know any better, but given the cost of attending this school it seems likely that they’re sufficiently educated to be making deliberate choices. So perhaps this is an opportunity for little Mary to learn that one follows the rules despite the choices made by one’s peers?

On the other hand, isn’t this kind of like a Goth kid attending a Catholic school? If you’re not going to follow the program, then why bother?

2

Your last sentence there has a very easy answer, and one that may answer your basic question. The goth kid may be going to the Catholic school because it’s the best school around, not because it is religious…around here, a lot of non-Catholic kids go to Catholic schools for that exact reason. The fact that is religious is a side issue, the parent is just looking for the best education.

Likewise, the fact that this preschool is so expensive indicates to me that there is probably more to its benefits than just rules about what the kids can bring for lunch, so perhaps that is why Jimmy’s parents are sending him there…they have great facilities, great teachers, great programs, and the food issue is, to them, a side issue.

Not that I think they shouldn’t follow the rules, but I can see where they might be thinking that food is not the reason you pick a school, and that this particular rule doesn’t seem that important to them.

I think your second-to-last sentence is the right attitude…to just explain to Mary that not everyone is going to follow rules, but that this particular rule makes a lot of sense, and here are the reasons why, and we are going to follow the rules despite what Jimmy & his parents do.

I’m surprised a teacher hasn’t noticed Jimmy eating the junk food…seems as if this is an important rule, they would want to talk to the parents about it.

3

This is the key sentence to me. This indicates that, for whatever reason, the choice is deliberate. I might not agree with it, (or, more precisely, I don’t agree that chicken nuggets and fries are a good way to keep your bodyweight up even if that’s the goal), but it is clearly intentional, and parents are still free to parent as they see fit.

Yes, your “spin” is excellent: even when other people don’t follow the rules, we should, as long as they are morally correct rules.

Interesting question as my son’s best friend is in exactly this predicament - he’s a seventh grade goth kid recently enrolled in a Catholic school. The answer for him, which I wouldn’t reveal to his classmates, is it’s because he’s been kicked out of two schools already and his parents think this particular school is their best bet because of its small teacher to student ratio and emphasis on discipline. We (neopagans, all of us), sympathize with his struggles in religion class and Mass attendance required by the school, and we don’t expect him to become a Catholic (unless that’s what he wants). But the school offers things besides religion that are proving to be very beneficial to him indeed. It may be that Jimmy’s parents don’t agree with the dietary rules of his school, but find that other parts of it are beneficial.

Since the school is OK with it (in both cases - the Catholic school that Nathan attends knows neither he nor his family is Catholic, and Jimmy’s school isn’t preventing him from bringing junk food), then it’s really none of the parent’s business. Unless, of course, it’s a co-op run by the parents, in which case she should bring up her concerns at the next meeting.

I can sympathize with how annoying it is, though. Caileigh’s playgroup has the same set-up, and the other kids eat total garbage. She’s starting to look at their plates more closely, and I dread the day she refuses her Larabar and water in favor of some other kid’s Hawaiian Punch and candy coated “fruit” bites.

This is one situation where the advice, “Keep your eyes on your own plate!” really is literally true!

4

Interesting - I always wondered what kind of expectations a Catholic school had for students who are not of that faith. True “beliefs” are appropriately private and easy to conceal, but what about participating in rituals? To make my analogy work, I’d probably have to have the Goth student doing something contrary during Mass; somehow I doubt that would fly.

5

He’s not allowed to act out, if that’s what you’re asking. However, he must attend Mass with his classmates, but of course does not take Communion. To any Catholic child who whines about why Nathan doesn’t have to take Communion, it would simply be answered that it’s not something he has to do, and the reason why is private, but they still have to do it.

Kids - heck, people - don’t always need to know “why”. Sometimes “why” is a private matter. Pushing to know “why” on a personal question when the person in question is reluctant to answer is rude - a very important lesson for preschoolers in its own right.
(I find it kind of ironic to be coming down on the law-and-order side of things in this thread, since I’m usually all about asking why and pushing against authority. But I think there’s plenty of time to learn that, and 3 is the time to learn some measure of reasoned obedience. Balance in all things, and all that rot.)

6

A Catholic school would not expect a child to become Catholic or have Catholic beliefs, but usually, as WhyNot says, religion class and Mass attendance is mandatory. It would be easy to go to mass and just sit and not participate. Religion class is a little different, as it is a real class, but the schools aren’t usually interested in using it as a conversion tool or anything.

And I agree with WhyNot…this seems to be a time to teach a child to be concerned with themselves and not to worry about what other kids are doing.

7

I agree completely. We practice this at PlayLand, where my kids MUST wear socks because that is the rule. Plenty of other kids don’t follow the rule. We don’t worry about them.

That’s what I like about Miss Manners’ general principles for conduct - if you make it a practice to (generally) follow rules, then you don’t have to spend time and energy in every situation worrying about whether you’re doing it “right”.

8

When I was in Catholic school lo these many years ago, Mass attendance was mandatory for everybody. Mass participation was not. That is, nobody was policing who did the Vatican Rag (first get down upon your knees/ fiddle with your rosaries/ bow your heads with great respect and/genuflect, genuflect, genuflect) properly during Mass. So some number of kids just sat there. Quietness in sitting was policed however and offenders were likely to be removed to the cry room.

Girls raised Really Catholic covered their heads and arms for Mass; Girls raised Liberal Catholic did not. That wasn’t policed either. Though interestingly, the three Jewish girls in my class always covered their heads and arms also. I never asked them why, inquisitiveness about details of practice were not encouraged except in a classroom discussion setting.

Attendance in religion class was also mandatory for everybody.

When we all filed over to the church for confession, some number of kids stayed in the classroom as I recall – either they were not RC, had not made their first confesssion yet, or did not plan to that week. During Mass, there were always some kids who did not go up for the Eucharist also. Later on, during the run up to Confirmation (sometime about sixth grade), everybody who wasn’t being confirmed that year also stayed in the classroom. I held out another year or maybe two on Confirmation so I stayed with them too, it was sort of like a study hall. You could do pretty much as you liked as long as you did it quietly, and it was usually supervised by a parent or sometimes the school nurse.

But I went to school in the South, and the RC population was a clear minority so we always had a substantial number of non-catholics in school.

9

(Bolding mine).

This would surprise me. I mean, the RC is a big tent and lots of people do all kinds of things. However, in seventh grade they are either in the run up to confirmation or are already confirmed. By that time, the decision to take part in the Eucharist ought to be strictly voluntary.

10

I can’t answer for church doctrine, only what he tells me, which is that his classmates “have to” take Communion, but he stays in his seat. When I asked him if the other kids asked why, he said yes, and that the teacher said it wasn’t their concern. Understand that this is not a kid with a great grasp of the rules of the Church, either. As there are 15 seventh graders in the school (and similar class sizes for the other grades - K-8), it may just be the glares of the teachers getting kids off their butts, I don’t know.

I was mostly trying to help **fessie **with her analogy - some “rule” he doesn’t follow but the other kids have to anyway.

11

At my kids’ school, that lunch would be sent home in the lunchbox whence it came. This would be repeated until a different lunch appeared in the lunch box.

The snack rules are really easy: You can bring fruit. That’s it. Vegetables if you must. But it had better have had something to do with a plant fairly recently in its incarnation cycle or it will be sent home.

The lunch rules are these: No cookies, no candy, no chips. Otherwise, have at it. Cookies, candy, and chips will be sent home. Oh, yeah, and carbonated beverages are tolerated but not encouranged. That really has to do with mess – Eldest quite likes water with bubbles and this was tolerated until he, um, well, you know, they were studying volcanoes that day, 'kay? He got a leetle carried away.

So now he drinks tap water.

However, at my kids’ school they think the rules are for a reason and if there is no reason for it they remove the rule. But no, it is absolutely not the job of one of the other mothers to raise the issue or police the lunchboxes. That’s the job of the teachers here.

12

What would be the problem with a Goth Catholic or a Goth in a Catholic school anyway? The dress code probably allows for lots of black and even dark makeup.

13

Yeah-if anything, Catholicism is probably THE Gothest religion out there.
As far as manditory Mass attendance, as one who went to a Catholic school, K-8, I can tell you we never had a problem with it. (We were all Catholic, as far as I know). My friends and I used to goof off and have fun at Mass. It got you out of class-that was a GOOD thing.

14

On a boy? :dubious:

15

I was confirmed in 8th grade, so I don’t think that’s quite accurate theologically; the policy of the school itself is a separate matter.

16

Yes, goth boys will wear make up.

17

If the ‘promoting healthy eating habits’ bit is one of the school’s selling points to parents (that is, if this is to be expected as one of the reasons the parents are willing to pay the big bucks to send their kids there), then I think this particular rule is the business of any parent who wants it to be their business.

The reason should be obvious: it’s a lot easier to get into the swing of eating healthily if there aren’t any tempting alternatives in sight. Given how true this is for us self-disciplined adults, think of how much more true this must be for 4 year old children.

The presence of junk food undermines the effectiveness of the school’s attempts to teach good eating habits, not just with ‘Jimmy,’ but with all the other kids who see the junk food ‘Jimmy’ brings in, and suddenly don’t see why they should have to be snacking on apples and carrots.

When you pay money to send your kids to a private school, you’re paying for an environment. Either the school is working to foster the advertised environment, or they’re not.

18

Um, no. Minimal makeup, often uniforms, often policies about hair coloring, haircuts as well. Pretty damn hard to be a outrageous goth in a Catholic school. That being said, different schools have different policies. YMMV.

19

What happens when little Jimmy brings in a pint of rye and an ounce of Leb ?

I agree, his parents are breaking the rules and there is a good chance that it is having a disruptive effect on the other kids - 4yr old Mary must have told her mother Ann about little Jimmy’s alternative lunchbox.

I’m slightly puzzled that Ann knows that little Jimmy’s parents are concerned that he should put on weight - I mean is that the sort of thing Jimmy would tell Mary ?

There is a bit more to this story - c’mon fess up Fessie :slight_smile:

20

I think it more likely that he was expressing disbelief that a Catholic school’s dress code would allow a boy to wear make up.