# 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:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Ike\_Witt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ike_witt/32/283_2.png) [@Ike\_Witt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ike_Witt)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2005, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-suspended-for-talking-on-phone-to-mom-in-iraq-wtf/302733/161 "2005-05-07T20:06:52Z")
Okay. **Garfield** has changed my mind. How obvious it all really is now. Phone calls from the other side of the world need to be planned in advance. Arrangments after school don’t need to be. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2005, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-suspended-for-talking-on-phone-to-mom-in-iraq-wtf/302733/162 "2005-05-07T20:14:36Z")
There are some What Ifs here. I’m not pitting the administrators at all. I do think the teacher should have acted differently. I’m also agreeing that the student pretty much fell on his own sword, but I qualify that by saying I (just being me) understand his anger. It looks like the teacher’s problem was that a student was talking on the phone and then chose to physically interfere for an inadequate reason (assuming the student DID clearly state it was his mother on the other end). That should have been the end of it right there. The administration’s problem was how to make concessions and still maintain some level of discipline. If anything, they were the ones trapped in a can’t win situation. What could have happened, and what would have kept this out of the news, would have been to allow the call to be completed, and then verify and discipline (if necessary). ---
**Author:** ![Garfield226](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Garfield226](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Garfield226)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2005, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-suspended-for-talking-on-phone-to-mom-in-iraq-wtf/302733/163 "2005-05-07T20:15:12Z")
> [@adam yax](#): > > Okay. **Garfield** has changed my mind. How obvious it all really is now. Phone calls from the other side of the world need to be planned in advance. Arrangments after school don’t need to be. No, phonecalls which need to be received during school hours need to be planned for in advance. Phonecalls made after school hours do not. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2005, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-suspended-for-talking-on-phone-to-mom-in-iraq-wtf/302733/164 "2005-05-07T20:26:03Z")
> [@adam yax](#): > > Okay. **Garfield** has changed my mind. How obvious it all really is now. Phone calls from the other side of the world need to be planned in advance. Arrangments after school don’t need to be. I forgot all about one nit - the time difference. How many hours difference is there? Mom probably was calling after duty hours, the only time she was allowed to call. She calls when she can, and there is no set schedule probably. I guess also, soccer practice and car pools are more important than everything else on the planet. It sounds like there were a few things lacking - common sense, ability to make an on the spot decision to bend the rules (by the teacher) and a fouled up sense of priorities (enforce the Rule and maintain absolute power, or bend it slightly in the name of common decency and common sense). I hope the principal or super intendant of schools or someone took this teacher aside and had some guidance for future cases. I’m pretty sure they did, sooner or later, or will very soon. Obviously I’m starting to get a bit annoyed that all the burden to make prior arrangements and to act “adult” and “reasonable” seems to be on the student. It goes both ways. Yanking a phone out of someone’s hand for any reason is serious disrespect. You tend to get the respect you give. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2005, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-suspended-for-talking-on-phone-to-mom-in-iraq-wtf/302733/165 "2005-05-07T20:57:29Z")
> [@Garfield226](#): > > So now we’re talking about appropriate reactions to stupid or unjust or whatever rules. Civil disobedience? Sure. As long as you accept the consequences of your actions. This kid didn’t. Get the rule removed? Of course. This kid didn’t. There is yet a third response, and that is the person of authority simply declines to enforce the rule when it is inappropriate. This is where judgment comes in, and it is entirely acceptable for a teacher or administrator to say, “We won’t enforce this rule today”. Discipline will not collapse, and the mob will not take over the school just because an authority figure recognizes that the rule didn’t anticipate extraordinary circumstances that call for a creative and just response… ---
**Author:** ![Ike\_Witt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ike_witt/32/283_2.png) [@Ike\_Witt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ike_Witt)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2005, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-suspended-for-talking-on-phone-to-mom-in-iraq-wtf/302733/166 "2005-05-07T21:01:44Z")
> [@Garfield226](#): > > No, phonecalls which need to be received during school hours need to be planned for in advance. Phonecalls made after school hours do not. So, lets say hypothetically that a student has both parents in town. The father has a heart attack at work. Mother calls the son to try and tell him that father is in the hospital. Are you saying that the teacher still should try and confiscate the phone because the heart attack wasn’t planned in advance? And this > [@](#): > > The reasoning is that “Hey, kids might need to use their cellphones after school but before they get home. Banning phones at school prevents students from using phones after extracurricular activities, if they should happen to get into a car accident on the way home from school, or if they go to a job immediately after school.” doesn’t really answer why the phones aren’t banned from the school. If the student has a car, then they can leave the phone there can’t they? ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2005, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-suspended-for-talking-on-phone-to-mom-in-iraq-wtf/302733/167 "2005-05-07T21:05:32Z")
This is just **one** story of conflict between a student and teacher that we have differing opinions on. The aggitated five year old who was handcuffed by the cops was another. These stories have enough of a twist to make the headlines, but this kind of “who’s at fault” debate goes on _all the time_ in our schools. There are those like **mswas** who are ready to charge teachers with assault for trying to take away a telephone from a student and there are students who can threaten to slit a teacher’s throat who are not even suspended. There is a misunderstanding of what “zero tolerance” means and there is the obscene interpretation and enforcement of zero tolerance so that common sense is not permitted. Students who are not yet legally adults and certainly not behaving as responsible adults don’t want to be treated like children. I can understand that, but give teachers an option. Can you imagine being a teacher and having **mswas** for one of your parents? Imagine that you have 150 students and 10% of the parents are like that! Imagine the damage that’s been done to the student before she or he ever enters your classroom! This is the reverse of a question that was put to **DtC**. Would you want to go to a job every day where people were allowed to scream obscenities at you without consequence? Or where people were allowed to trespass in your office after being told to leave? In reading this thread, I couldn’t help but think of the day after school hours that I found a student in the _teachers’ lounge_ using the phone that _my money_ had paid for and the phone that I needed to use at that particular moment. She refused to get off of the phone and was very irritated with me. I waited about a full minute before I cut her off. ---
**Author:** ![Garfield226](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Garfield226](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Garfield226)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2005, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-suspended-for-talking-on-phone-to-mom-in-iraq-wtf/302733/168 "2005-05-07T21:05:39Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > There is yet a third response, and that is the person of authority simply declines to enforce the rule when it is inappropriate. This is where judgment comes in, and it is entirely acceptable for a teacher or administrator to say, “We won’t enforce this rule today”. Discipline will not collapse, and the mob will not take over the school just because an authority figure recognizes that the rule didn’t anticipate extraordinary circumstances that call for a creative and just response… Well certainly. I thought we were talking about the student’s reactions. The administration is certainly free to not enforce the rules, and in this situation I personally think that’s probably the best course of action. This would, of course, require the administration to be AWARE of the situation, and in this case that didn’t happen until after the fact and not without a lot of temper-tantrums from the kid. In any case, as many have said, he wasn’t suspended for the cellphone use, he was suspended for cursing out the teacher. ---
**Author:** ![Garfield226](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Garfield226](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Garfield226)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2005, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-suspended-for-talking-on-phone-to-mom-in-iraq-wtf/302733/169 "2005-05-07T21:09:11Z")
> [@adam yax](#): > > So, lets say hypothetically that a student has both parents in town. The father has a heart attack at work. Mother calls the son to try and tell him that father is in the hospital. Are you saying that the teacher still should try and confiscate the phone because the heart attack wasn’t planned in advance? No, in that case, the mother should call the school and have them send for the student. That’s exactly how it would have happened for years before cellphones, why shouldn’t it happen that way now? > [@](#): > > And this doesn’t really answer why the phones aren’t banned from the school. If the student has a car, then they can leave the phone there can’t they? That’s a big “if” and could be seen as discriminatory to those students who don’t have a car. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2005, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-suspended-for-talking-on-phone-to-mom-in-iraq-wtf/302733/170 "2005-05-07T23:12:23Z")
[Student’s suspension reduced to three days.](http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Moms-Call-Suspension.html) Provides a lot of answers, I hope. The school still overreacted, since I would _expect_ a 17-year-old whose mother is in Iraq and only calls once a moth to freak out when a teacher tries to grab his phone. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2005, 9:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-suspended-for-talking-on-phone-to-mom-in-iraq-wtf/302733/171 "2005-05-08T09:51:37Z")
> [@Garfield226](#): > > Are there situations when using a phone in school is appropriate? Sure. However (in my opinion) they are so few and far between that a no-cellphone-use-during-school rule is reasonable, and individual exceptions can be handled by the administration. During lunch break, it’s every bit as reasonable for a student to use the phone as it is for him to have a face-to-face conversation with his friends. This is a school, not a prison. When the kid’s mother called from Iraq, that would’ve been a perfect time for the teacher to realize how silly the rule was to begin with. ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2005, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-suspended-for-talking-on-phone-to-mom-in-iraq-wtf/302733/172 "2005-05-08T13:01:29Z")
Wow the NYT piece really slams the folks here who took Kevin’s story at face value: > [@](#): > > The teacher says the confrontation happened in a hallway, not outside, and that **Francois never said the call was with his mother.** Gee…you mean little emotional Kevin **lied** about telling the teacher Mom was on the phone? I wonder if all of the posters here who had NO problem lambasting the teacher based ONLY on Kevin’s version would care to offer up a retraction? > [@](#): > > The punishment for violating that policy is that the phone is confiscated until the end of the day. But Francois was suspended for cursing and being defiant, said Parham. That was extended to 10 because ‘‘he did not want to accept the three-day suspension and to agree that he would not use the cell phone openly or curse.’’ Wow…it appears that the administration WAS going for a lesser punishment of 3 days initially…but little emotional Kevin STILL wouldn’t stop being a jackass…and wouldn’t agree to further abide by school policy in the future (and not swear.) I’d say that this story proves my earlier statement about folks leaping to conclusions without all of the facts…but that would be gloating. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2005, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-suspended-for-talking-on-phone-to-mom-in-iraq-wtf/302733/173 "2005-05-08T13:06:31Z")
> [@beagledave](#): > > Wow the NYT piece really slams the folks here who took Kevin’s story at face value: > > _The teacher says the confrontation happened in a hallway, not outside, and that Francois never said the call was with his mother._ > > Gee…you mean little emotional Kevin **lied** about telling the teacher Mom was on the phone? Of course, that’s the only explanation! It’s impossible that the teacher lied about Kevin _not_ telling him, right? Why would an adult lie? That’s silly! ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2005, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-suspended-for-talking-on-phone-to-mom-in-iraq-wtf/302733/174 "2005-05-08T13:37:25Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > Of course, that’s the only explanation! It’s impossible that the teacher lied about Kevin _not_ telling him, right? Why would an adult lie? That’s silly! Oh you’re absolutely correct. We have three choices 1. Believe Kevin (the same person who got expelled for defiance, swearing, refusing to leave an office) 2. Believe teacher 3. Say we really don’t have enough info to start pulling the trigger on the teacher. I notice that you never offered up the possibility of KEVIN lying in any of your earlier posts…but have no problem offering up the possibility of the teacher lying. Yeah that seems open minded :rolleyes: Of course option #3 was my initial point all along…here let me help you > [@](#): > > I’d say that this story proves my earlier statement about folks leaping to conclusions without all of the facts. My first post in this thread… > [@](#): > > I have a general rule any more about these kind of stories involving "evil administrator"s: If the story involves student behavior, I tend to NOT automatically believe the accounts that make the papers. The accounts are the spinned version of the student or the helicopter parents…privacy concerns often prevent the full context of the story from coming out. and later, I said… > [@](#): > > We have very FEW details about the initial reaction between Kevin and the teacher. and later… > [@](#): > > As I pointed out…we don’t really know how the intial interaction between Kevin and the teacher went. But don’t let that stop you from calling the teacher a “moron”. (I even offered up a hypothetical that was actually NICER to Kevin than the way he seems to have behaved…where he only told the teacher about his Mom AFTER the teacher took the phone) and later… > [@](#): > > You’re eager to call the teacher a moron (among other things) based on HIS account alone. > > Forgive me for not rushing to automtically assume that everything that comes out of Kevin’s mouth is gospel. My sole point in this matter is that we don’t have enough information (especially about the initial encounter with the teacher…although it turns out thst we were lacking details about the office encounter as well) to start calling teachers morons and pitting them. Of course a lack of facts didn’t stop SOME folks from doing just that. I’m still waiting to see if **bluecanary** et al wander by to offer up a whoops. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![fessie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c37758/32.png) [@fessie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fessie)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2005, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-suspended-for-talking-on-phone-to-mom-in-iraq-wtf/302733/175 "2005-05-08T14:10:08Z")
This argument makes me miss the days when the world was small enough, and we knew each other well enough, that it was possible to make judgement calls rather than relying on blanket rules. You see a kid doing something unusual, but you know enough about him to realize he’s basically a good kid, doesn’t cause trouble, etc - you can give him the benefit of the doubt. Wait until he finishes his fucking phone call to ask what he was doing. OTOH, you see a kid who’s caused trouble from day 1, doing the same thing - well, a bit of paranoia is understandable. I just don’t see assuming that every time a student breaks a rule, it’s a matter of wilfulness. Of course it cuts both ways - parents need to give the school administration the same respect, rather than calling out the lawyers every time they hear something they don’t like. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2005, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-suspended-for-talking-on-phone-to-mom-in-iraq-wtf/302733/176 "2005-05-08T14:32:50Z")
Before you start gloating, keep in mind, we were talking here in the belief that Kevin had plainly told the teacher who the phone call was from, and that neither was lying. Now, if the teacher say she was not told, that is a different ball of wax. So now, one of them is a liar. Either one could be lying to cover their own ass. Kids lie, adults lie. Just because you are a child or an adult, that does not mean you are automatically honest or dishonest. Here it stops making sense. If the call was for real, the student only had to say “take it easy, it’s my mom” and the teacher could back off. Unless she was a total twit she would have. If the student said “fuck off”, then the teacher could rightly get pissed off and get more direct. With this new bit of information, and assuming that MOST people have at least a tiny bit of common sense, I’m starting to lean more in the teacher’s favor. If it’s a case of the teacher simply not being told the nature of the call, and of the student being rude or dismissive and then lying about it later, then the punishment should be increased - for disrespect and for lying, plus what was already given for the screaming fit. If the opposite is true, then 3 days for the temper tantrum is enough or maybe knock it down to one day. We were all talking, whatever side we took, based on the info we had. To gloat afterwards, based on info nobody had is “bad sport”. ---
**Author:** ![bluecanary](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bluecanary/32/3614_2.png) [@bluecanary](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bluecanary)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2005, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-suspended-for-talking-on-phone-to-mom-in-iraq-wtf/302733/177 "2005-05-08T14:54:40Z")
Basically, what **SteveG1** said. These sort of situations are one person’s word against another most of the time, and of course this is yet another example. Clearly someone’s been telling fibs here, you were quick to suspect the student even when there was no evidence to back that up, based on an inherent predisposition to do so (ref. your quote that you’ve reused in your last post about a “general rule…”). I chose to take the story as read. Secondly, I don’t give a shit about the “defiance, swearing and refusing to leave an office” later. I was a typical A student at his age, and if what is described having happened to Kevin had happened to me, that’d be the least of the teacher’s worries. ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2005, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-suspended-for-talking-on-phone-to-mom-in-iraq-wtf/302733/178 "2005-05-08T15:18:32Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > We were all talking, whatever side we took, based on the info we had. To gloat afterwards, based on info nobody had is “bad sport”. Uhhh, no. As i said **repeatedly** …the whole problem here is that you folks were EAGER to judge the teacher based on scant information coming from a party with a vested interest in spinning things his way. You make it sound as if you were FORCED to take a side in terms of what happened inthe initial encounter between the student and teacher…and so sided with the kid. Nothing could be further from the truth. You **could** have said…I don’t have enough information either way to form an opinion on whether the teacher is a moron (substitute other attacks against teacher per individual poster). The fact that you and several posters insisted on a “rush to judgement” with a paucity of unbiased facts is what I’m “gloating” about. ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2005, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-suspended-for-talking-on-phone-to-mom-in-iraq-wtf/302733/179 "2005-05-08T15:23:44Z")
> [@bluecanary](#): > > Basically, what **SteveG1** said. These sort of situations are one person’s word against another most of the time, and of course this is yet another example. > > Clearly someone’s been telling fibs here, you were quick to suspect the student even when there was no evidence to back that up, based on an inherent predisposition to do so (ref. your quote that you’ve reused in your last post about a “general rule…”). I chose to take the story as read. Actually I said **repeatedly** (starting with my first post in this thread) that we don’t have enough information about the details of the encounter between the student and teacher to be be calling the teacher a moron. I was calling into question the motives for the student’s version since that is the only version that was on the table at the time…THAT is the version you were more than eager to foolishly lambast the teacher for. > [@](#): > > Secondly, I don’t give a shit about the “defiance, swearing and refusing to leave an office” later. I was a typical A student at his age, and if what is described having happened to Kevin had happened to me, that’d be the least of the teacher’s worries. Ooooh tough guy…I’m impressed!! :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2005, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-suspended-for-talking-on-phone-to-mom-in-iraq-wtf/302733/180 "2005-05-08T15:31:43Z")
> [@beagledave](#): > > Uhhh, no. > > The fact that you and several posters insisted on a “rush to judgement” with a paucity of unbiased facts is what I’m “gloating” about. Uhhh, no right back at ya. Somehow, the “sense of the situation” and the impression given by the news article was that the teacher had in fact known the nature of the call. Either by misdirection or by withholding details (“malinfo”), that was what many of us got out of it. If it was just me, I’d think you were right, but it wasn’t just me. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-suspended-for-talking-on-phone-to-mom-in-iraq-wtf/302733.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-suspended-for-talking-on-phone-to-mom-in-iraq-wtf/302733.md?page=10)