# Student suspended for talking on phone to Mom in Iraq - WTF? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 6, 2005, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-suspended-for-talking-on-phone-to-mom-in-iraq-wtf/302733 "2005-05-06T19:25:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2005, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-suspended-for-talking-on-phone-to-mom-in-iraq-wtf/302733/341 "2005-05-13T20:39:30Z")
Here is the gist of what I said. You can verify for yourself, it’s there for everyone to see. > [@SteveG1](#): > > If things are covered, they are covered. Some things are left to the discretion of the individual. We do not have to beg for special dispensation. We do not have to worry about breaking any rule we didn’t know about. There either is, or isn’t a rule/policy. If we don’t know, we are told and corrected. No punishment, no suspension, no confiscations. Where did I ever say everything was codified? I never did. If anything, I said some (many?) things were deliberately and intentionally not codified. Don’t put those words in my mouth. > [@Dead Alive](#): > > The school says they are reviewing the policy. Apparently, they (the school) feel it is indeed worth revisiting the policy and possibly revising it. They may not change it at all, but they are willing to take a look at the possibility (if needed). There is a sensible way to avoid rigid codification, while also avoiding the inevitable favoritism, bias and nonuniformity inherent in a pure case by case “system” - guidelines. These give the intent and the appropriate limits, yet still leave room for judgment. Something tells me that this is what the school will come up with. ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2005, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-suspended-for-talking-on-phone-to-mom-in-iraq-wtf/302733/342 "2005-05-14T00:53:54Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Clear something up for me, someone. Forget the student’s grades for now. Did/does he have a history of being a general asshole? That would be a big factor. Or was this a one time fluke incident? If he was a known moron then it’s done. Otherwise, I’m not so convinced that all is well. How exactly would “we” know this? The only reason “we” know about his low grades is because Kevin admitted as much in interviews. The only reason we even KNOW about this cell phone incident is because Kevin whined to the media…otherwise school officials would be prohibited from discussing it. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2005, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-suspended-for-talking-on-phone-to-mom-in-iraq-wtf/302733/343 "2005-05-14T01:06:15Z")
Isn’t it at least a reasonable question? ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2005, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-suspended-for-talking-on-phone-to-mom-in-iraq-wtf/302733/344 "2005-05-14T01:14:21Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Isn’t it at least a reasonable question? If one has any realistic knowledge about schools work and student privacy, no it’s not actually a reasonable question. That is, if by “reasonable” you mean a question that could ever legally be answered by the school. The only OTHER way you would “know” is informally from other kids etc… Of course your statement that… > [@](#): > > Did/does he have a history of being a general asshole? That would be a big factor. …does fly in the face of what several other posters on your “side” are saying (That it doesn’t matter if the kid had previous behavioral problems). I’m not lumping all of you guys together of course, just pointing out that they seem to think it doesn’t matter. (A position that I disagree with…but there ya go). ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2005, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-suspended-for-talking-on-phone-to-mom-in-iraq-wtf/302733/345 "2005-05-14T01:53:22Z")
> [@beagledave](#): > > just pointing out that they seem to think it doesn’t matter. (A position that I disagree with…but there ya go). Personally, as much as I “spoke up” for him, I think it does matter, a lot. If we knew he was a liar and a troublemaker, then he got off way too light as it is. I for one would drop him like a hot potato. If we knew he was a perfect little darling, then we can more easily believe him. The truth is probably somewhere in between. Now if he (or the teacher) went totally bat shit on national TV, that would settle it, and give us some free entertainment besides. Anyway, I’ve spoke my piece (and then some), taken some detours, and maybe it’s time to give this thread a rest. Unless they announce a cage match. Then I’m tuning in 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2005, 7:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-suspended-for-talking-on-phone-to-mom-in-iraq-wtf/302733/346 "2005-05-14T07:42:16Z")
> [@](#): > > Little Nemo, profanity is considered verbal assault whether it is directed at a student or a teacher. You can call profanity verbal assault or verbal mutiny or verbal homicide or verbal grand theft auto, but profanity is not assault. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-suspended-for-talking-on-phone-to-mom-in-iraq-wtf/302733.md?page=17)