Bwahaha – Ann overheard a couple of remarks. Once, when Jimmy’s father said something about not wanting him to lose weight. On another occasion, a teacher rolled her eyes (in front of Ann) when asking if Jimmy had brought Cheetos once again.
That whole “pickup/drop-off” process can be quite illuminating.
In re: goth, I just picked that because I was trying to imagine an in-your-face alternative to Catholicism. I should’ve extended my analogy to include the school uniform v. black clothing, that’s actually what I was thinking.
I figured that once the kids are really cognizant of Jimmy’s special treatment, they’ll probably fix his eating habits on their own via taunting and ostracism.
I see where you’re going, but again, in the OP, Jimmy’s parents, not Jimmy himself, are the ones deciding he shouldn’t follow the rules, and they have a reason for doing so - even though we don’t know what it is or if it’s a “good” reason. That makes it a different game than the rebellious goth kid who decides to wear black. (Which, if a uniform is in effect, simply wouldn’t fly.)
Let’s change the Catholic school/Goth hypothetical to an Orthodox Jewish boy enrolled at a Catholic school. (Make up your own reason why this might be a good thing for the family. Maybe they’re the only Orthodox family in town and all the public schools suck.) Their dress code says no hats. But Noah wears a yarmulke, at his parents decree. Do the other parents have a right to step in and say that he shouldn’t? I think most of us would say no. It’s a religious item that we understand, so we’ll allow it.
Let’s remove the religious element: Say Tommy wears a hat that’s not overtly religious, but a simple knit cap. His parents have been overheard to express concern that his head not get cold. Does it change things because we can’t imagine a medical reason why it would be dangerous for him to get his head cold?
I guess what I’m saying is that the only person who has any right to get an answer from Jimmy’s parent is the Administrator of the school. If they’ve convinced her that chicken nuggets and Cheetos are in his best interest, say by presenting a doctor’s note that saturated fats are important for the boy’s “condition”, then that’s the end of it. We don’t have to know why or that a condition exists, and neither do the students. I think it’s permissible to ask the Administrator* if *the situation has been addressed (and to request that it be done, if it hasn’t), but I don’t think anyone has the right to know more than that.
However, a teacher rolling her eyes to disparage a student in front of another parent is pretty unprofessional. It does make me wonder if they simply don’t have the balls to enforce their rules, which isn’t good.
While the knit cap to keep the head from getting cold sounds silly, I did know a boy growing up who was bald. He was bald due to some sort of auto-immune disease–to the best of my knowledge he was otherwise healthy. He got to wear a hat in circumstances where other people weren’t–such as on the soccer field on sunny days (sometimes with an overt warning not to head the ball). He was very happy when our local public high school changed it’s hat policy so that hats were permitted. Now he could wear a hat and not be conspicuous.
More generally, I think it is your business when someone else doesn’t follow the rules, if their failure to follow the rules is likely to result in a change of rules. Such as a policy that everyone is supposed to be on time, but no one gets in trouble for being a little bit late once in awhile, until Mary is hired, and she is ALWAYS late. So the policy is changed, or enforced more strictly, and everyone suffers because now anyone who is late gets written up or their pay docked or whatever.
I’m not convinced that the lunch thing is equivalent. But possibly it is. Certainly there are places with more restrictive policies. But then the question becomes, are you sure you want a more restrictive policy? Or do you just wish that this particular parent followed the existing policy more closesly?
I think the answer is ‘it depends’. If someone else doesn’t follow the rules and this has a direct, negative effect on others present (for example, if the rule is ‘no shitting in the pool’), then yes, it’s my business when someone else doesn’t follow the rules.
And if the rule is pretty much an arbitrary one (‘school uniforms must be worn’) and is being selectively enforced, then it might be my business; for example, if my kid get hauled over the coals for losing his necktie, yet other kids are turning up in jeans and T shirts unchallenged - although in this case, my complaint would be against the people enforcing the rules, not those flouting them and getting away with it.
But somewhere in the middle, there’s a class of rules for which it really makes no difference to me or anyone else if someone else isn’t following them, and for these, it’s up to the institution that stated them whether or not they care enough to enforce them.
Eureka , a miracle has occurred, and someone in a GD thread has changed his mind. I came in here to say that it made no difference to me whether someone broke a rule if it didn’t affect me directly. I never considered that the existing rules may be made more stringent. I realize the risk of using a PDA for example on a plane during taxi is between non-existant and miniscule, but if enough people do it they’ll simply confiscate them at the gate. I’d hate to have my kid’s lunch box searched daily because someone else can’t follow the rules.
I went to a Catholic high school and grade school. We had a lot of non-Catholics including some Muslim girls. Some of the Muslim girls covered themselves from head to toe. We weren’t allowed to wear pants instead of a skirt except for in the winter (and never shorts) so they would wear thick, thick tights or pants under their skirts. These girls were also given space and time to do the prayers. None of us tried it, but I think that if a non-Muslim student wore pants under their skirt in class we would be asked to take it off (a lot of us came and went from school with pajama bottoms on under our skirts in the winter but we stuck them in the locker once we got there).
In the example you gave, I don’t think the other parents should care what Jimmy eats unless the other kids start requesting those lunches too.
Tell me, is ‘little Jimmy’ really rather tall for his age? I, who ended up 6’4", was really prone to illness until I became overweight about 10 years ago. If so, then I have considerable sympathy with the parents. Note, though, that correlation does not imply causation, and the plural of anecdote is not data.
This is in Spain. At the nuns (K-8) we all had to go to a weekly Mass but nobody counted whether you were going up for Communion or not, that’s between you and God. At the Jesuits (9-12) we were given the choice of going to a weekly Mass or to a study room. The choice was understood to be year-long, you couldn’t just change your mind every other week. Many of my classmates didn’t much care for Catholicism but came to Mass because it was a lot less boring than the study room. In the public High School, students got the choice of studying Religion or Ethics.
Those were the rules when I was there and they’re still the rules now. A few of the immigrant parents have asked to be able to visit a Religion class or one of the Masses, not being familiar at all with either; if they decide it’s ok they bring the kid and if they decide it’s not ok, they’re not the only schools in town. From what my teacher friends tell me, all those parents have decided it’s ok. Most of the Muslim parents are taking their kids to public schools but there’s a few at the Nuns. Several of the years of Religion class are about “comparative theology” so having someone who can explain “this is what I believe” is cool; I know that a few times Buddhist and Muslim parents have given talks to the students in those courses.
I have to wonder whether bringing up the fact that Jimmy eats fast food every day for lunch will end up with a stricter rule or whether it will get brushed aside as something that cannot be enforced. Now, I understand that a few people brought up that some kids need a little more fat in their diet, but there are much healthier ways of getting those fats than introducing a large amount of processed food as the bulk of their diets. Besides, my idea of a home packed lunch is that at least part of it was made at home. Whether it’s a sandwich with an apple, leftovers from last night, cheese cubes and veggies and crackers, there are many ways to introduce any necessary fats that Jimmy may need without him having to ingest deep fried food. Do his parents bring him hot and fresh nuggets and fries? If not, I can’t imagine cold fried food being very appetizing; I’ve had it a couple of times and I’d rather have a lunch that’s packed with regard to how it’ll be stored and served in several hours.
If Ann is properly acquainted with Jimmy’s parents, then she has room to talk to them directly. If not, it may be a concern to bring up with the teacher of both Mary and Jimmy, as (if I understand this correctly) the teacher is the first line of disciplinary action in regard to the healthy lunches rule and has the most direct contact with the parents. However, I would not be surprised at all if Jimmy’s parents got defensive and threaten legal action because their kid has been called out for not following the school’s dietary guidelines.