What “impression” would that be, Kevin’s account of the story?
THAT’s what the news media referenced. If you go to the original story in the OP…
So the “sense of the situation” and the “impression given by the news article” both come Francois’ version, correct?
You and others made a choice that Francois’ version of the story was enough to slam the teacher. No one held a gun to your head and said YOU MUST CHOOSE between teacher being bad or teacher being good.
It’s amazing…I bet some of the same folks in this thread who had no problem blasting the teacher based on scanty evidence from a potentially biased source, would be the SAME folks to criticize a poster for using a cite from a right wing (or left wing) blog or partisan web site.
You COULD have declined to make a judgement about the teacher until (or if) more facts (especially from other parties) became available. You (and others) were more interested in a rush to judgement than waiting to see if (or when) more facts might become available.
I’m not gloating to say the that teacher was right (frankly, we STILL don’t know all the details about the initial encounter)…I’m gloating about those who rushed to judge, rather than just refrain from saying anything.
Sorry, beagledave, but all early posts were based on the evidence at hand - the original story. The people who were assuming at that time that Kevin didn’t tell the teacher his mother was in Iraq were the ones who were speculating in the face of the facts as we knew them.
And, as others have noted, now that we’ve heard two different versions of what happened we have no more reason to assume the teacher is telling the truth than we do that Kevin is.
Don’t cast any judgement on the intial encounter. Realize that there ain’t much “evidence hand”, especially concerning the original encounter. Realize that the “evidence at hand” comes from someone with a vested interest in the story.
Therefore, say somethng like “Hey…I don’t know enough yet to judge the actions of the teacher in the initial encounter”.
Is that really so hard to do?
Isn’t that what I’ve been suggesting like 4 or 5 times?
(The NYT article just serves as confirming evidence as to why it’s not a good idea to jump to conclusions…it does not automatically settle the entire story of what happened between the teacher and Francois).
I’m just amazed that on a board where people will jump people’s shit for quoting conservative/liberal sources because of their lack of neutral facts…we have scads of folks willing to lambast a teacher…even though there is a paucity of facts from unbiased sources.
I’m still waiting (or hoping) that those who were eager to rush to judge will at least own up to that. I’m not suggesting that they say that the teacher was right, but to admit that they rushed to judgement WHEN THERE WAS NO NEED TO DO SO.
Physically grabbing a phone from a 17 year old student just because of a “no talking on phones at school” rule is wrong in itself.
As an adult, if I was talking to my mother who was in combat in Iraq I would do far more than swear at someone who tried to forcibly take the phone.
What it comes down to is this: The student has more than his share of adult stress. His father is dead, and his mother is in a war. Yet we expect him to deal with this adult stress while denying him the power of an adult to do simple things like NOT have his phone forcibly removed when he is talking to his mom in Iraq.
Why not escort him to the office while he continues to speak with his mom on the phone? Hell, punish him later for continuing to talk on the phone after being asked to stop. But using force to take the phone? The teacher should be the one suspended, at the least. And if the rule tells teachers to forcibly remove phones, then the rule needs to be changed.
I didn’t “rush to judgement” I chose a decision based on the info available. It’s that simple. There seemed to be nothing refuting the story at the time that I was aware of. I am naturally suspicious of any “new developments” that magically come up after the fact, as they could be manufactured. Afterthought and all that.
You see, both of them have a vested interest in getting their story believed. Depending on exactly what did happen, and what might happen, whoever is found to be more in the wrong could be in hot water.
Did the student say he told the teacher who it was to cover himself when he really hadn’t? It is very possible. Did the teacher say the student never told her, to cover herself? That is entirely possible too.
It’s all He Said She Said now. One of them is a liar. I’m suspecting it’s the student, but I don’t have All The Facts. I never will. But, as in “real life”, if I had to wait until every last possible detail and nit was obvious, I’d be too paralyzed to make any decisions about anything.
What would happen if you DIDN’T choose to “make a decision” about what really happened in the initial encounter? What awful thing would happen if you just said "Beats me what the real story is here…I think I’ll save my outrage for some other more definitive story out there. "?
Would the sun still come up on Monday? Would your Rice Crispies still stay crispy?
I really don’t get this…it’s like somebody is pointing a gun at your head and saying you MUST make a post in the BBQ Pit criticizing SOMEONE…choose NOW!!
This ain’t the Amazing Race…the first to “decide” doesn’t always come out ahead.
When you decided that you MUST “make a decision” (without a reasonable amount of unbiased evidence either way), you did indeed rush to judge.
Can someone explain why, even if we believe the teacher’s version without evidence, the teacher wasn’t the one in the wrong?
What about the situation required the use of force?
And no wonder the kid was “defiant”. He got a call from his mother in Iraq, scolding him for hanging up on her and telling him to answer her calls, and the administrators didn’t let him answer!
“Your mother may die believing that you hung up on her and refused to answer her calls, but at least you’ll learn this… no talking on the phone at school!”
Yeah, I can understand a little defiance.
All this, of course, is assuming the teacher is telling the truth. It looks much worse for them if they are lying.
beagledave, this is a discussion. It is not a trial. So, I had an opinion. If you didn’t like my opinion, that’s fine. If All The Facts do come out, and there is no doubt, that’s fine. If I’m completely wrong, hunky dory. What is this issue you have with my opinion, based on what I “knew” at the time? Opinions are like assholes; everybody has one, including me. Nobody forced me to say anything, it was tossed out there just like everyone else’s. I didn’t realize I needed “approval”.
Will the sun come up in the morning? Probably, but what if it didn’t? Do we know absolutely that it will? Science says it won’t go dark, but even science is limited by our understanding, and has been wrong before. What if my Rice Krispies aren’t crispy? They may be old and stale, regardless what I “know”. Almost every day, we learn that what we “knew” was dead wrong.
If you even noticed, my Opinion has been changing, as more info comes out. But, do we even know the new info is accurate? Do we know absolutely? Right now, with the information we have Right Now, one claims to have stated who the call was from; the other claims to have not been told. One of them is a liar. Each claims the other acted like a jerk. One of them was a jerk. He said she said. I don’t know which one is lying, I already said before I think the student probably is. As far as being a jerk, BOTH of them are jerks. If anyone ever yanked anything out of my hand, for any reason, I would view it as major disrespect. If, as the original story claimed, it was a Very Important Call, I would go ballistic.
If we had to sit on our hands until EVERY TINY NIT IS KNOWN, the Dope would be an awful quiet place.
Well, we can’t have high school students thinking they’re adults! We have to show them who’s boss, and if that means using physical force to enforce a rule that should never have been made in the first place, then so be it. If they don’t want to follow the rules, they can just not come to school… well, OK, they don’t have that choice either, but damnit, it’s their own fault they’re kids! If they don’t like it, they can just hurry up and stop being so damn young!
I admit that I’m more inclined to believe the student’s account than the teacher’s, because I remember the things teachers tried to pull when I was in school. The part that rang especially true was his refusal to leave the office where his phone was being held - when someone is trying to take your expensive personal property, you don’t want to let it out of your sight.
Sorry, I can’t comment on your post at this time. I’m not sure if all the facts are in and I’m awaiting further developments that may or may not occur.
So while we’re waiting, let’s talk about the 2004 election. I don’t want to jump the gun, but I think Bush is going to win.
[Ring ring]
(student)Hello?
(mother)Hi, it’s mom. How are you doing?
(student)Fine, I’m on my lunch break. Are you OK?
(mother)Yes I’m fine. I’m off duty, and had a minute of free time, it’s been hectic over here.
(teacher)No phones.
(student)Wait a minute.
[Grab]
[Click] - (hanging up)
(student)What the hell are you doing?! Who the hell do you think you are?!?!? What the fuck is wrong with you?!?!?
I know that never ever happens. Adults always know best and are always right. Almost forgot, none of them ever “stretch the truth” either.
I wonder, if this was during lunch time, why was it such a big fat hairy deal? I mean besides The RULE that is. Also, if the whole fault is on the student, then why was the punishment reduced?
Well geeze, if we’re just going to make crap up out of whole cloth to support our positions. . .
[ring ring]
[student]Hello?
[mother]Hi, it’s mom, how are you doing?
[student]Fine, except these fuckhole teachers won’t get off my back. I’m on my lunch break and there’s one coming over here right now.
[teacher]Kevin, hon, we’ve asked you before not to use the phone during school. Could you please put it away?
[student]Shut the fuck up, bitch, I’m trying to talk to my mommy.
[teacher]Now Kevin, that’s not very nice. You’re going to have to put that away.
[Kevin]I told you once, bitch, I’m on the phone. Go the fuck away.
[grab]
(and so on)
The point is that we don’t and won’t KNOW exactly what happened. We have the student’s word and the teacher’s word and that’s about it. The student was admittedly, deliberately and unapologetically breaking a rule. That, to me, makes his word suspect (not automatically false, but suspect). YMMV.
Your point would make sense if that’s what I suggested. Here’s some straw for ya…
In my world there is a huge difference between waiting “UNTIL EVERY TINY NIT IS KNOWN” and declining to pit a teacher based solely upon the limited account of the kid who got in trouble.
In your world I guess that they’re the same.
::shrug::.
My “possible scenario” above was made up. Obviously. That’s all it was. I made shit up. So what? I even had a disclaimer at the top “Possible Scenario”. I never claimed it was anything more than speculation.
But, we’re back to “you have to know all the facts” before doing anything or judging the adult - meaning by omission you have judged the non-adult guilty. Of course this is because all non-adults are lying sacks of shit and are not to be trusted. Conversely, all adults are perfectly reasonable and honest to the extreme and are totally competent in every endeavor (snicker).
Then we are also back to The Rules. No matter what, The Rules must be obeyed no matter what. Or negotiated for all possible permutations beforehand (and then blindly obeyed).
I call bullshit.
Here are a few situations (links) where Rules Are Rules and Rules Must Be Obeyed No Matter What…
Rules are rules. Zero tolerance. Forget common sense.
There is another news story (I don’t have the link right now) where a teen at a camp for “problem children” was acting up. He was restrained. He asked for his inhalor (asthma) and was refused because the “emergency expert” (an untrained one) judged that he was faking it. Guess what - he fucking died.
Rules are rules. Forget common sense. So much for the competence of the all-knowing adults, especially in that case.
It’s simple. The student was suspended for foul language and verbal abuse. The teacher was wrong in grabbing the cell phone, which triggered the verbal abuse. Was it enforcing discipline or was it just a power trip? What was being disrupted if this call was during lunch break? Did it wreck a crucial learning experience? Did it result in mob rule and panic in the streets? I’d say they BOTH have attitude problems at this point. I am starting to swing back in favor of the student again.
I’m getting sick of hearing about how the evil little commie bastard broke a rule over and over. Forget the rule and look at the circumstances. Maybe if people were not so hung up on rules, there would have been no tantrums and tirades(?).
Here’s a link to the inhalor incident. Maintain control and discipline at all costs. Adults know everything and are always right and never make mistakes.
I’ve not wanted to get involved in this debate, though as the husband of a damn hardworking teacher, you can imagine who I am more sympathetic to in this case.
However, the above statement makes little sense to me. We can argue the merits of this one rule, but to throw out the entire idea of rules that are uniformly applied to everyone, without fear or favor, is not a fair system.
What are your criteria for when the rules should be ignored or broken? Does your personal morality allow for anyone to disagree with your circumstances? How then, do we apply a fair system of rules? I don’t like enforcement to simply fall to the whim of whoever is on the scene at the time. I’d much rather know that *x * offense gets you *y * punishment. That hinders abuse of power. Nothing will ever remove that abuse completely- but it’s better than the alternative. Would you like the criminal justice system to work this way as well?
And to whoever telegraphed the thoughts of the other kids in the face of non-enforcement, I totally agree. If you are seen to ignore the rule for one, then why should the students take it seriously?
Get rid of the rule, or modify it. But I’ve always felt that non-enforcement of a policy is much worse than not having one at all. I’m also pretty sure that’s a bad place to be legally.
I was trying to get the point across that there are special situations, where the rule should not be applied uniformly. The comment you quoted was there because maybe (just maybe) the teacher’s attitude triggered the “unpleasant” response. I don’t know for sure - I don’t have all the facts. There are times when the No Exceptions philosophy is out of place. There are times when Common Sense should kick in and the rule is temporarily set aside because it does not or should not apply for that one situation. The criminal justice system (your example) allows for extenuating circumstances, and it deals with far more serious things than a phone call during lunch break.
“My” criteria for when a rule should be suspended, ignored, or altered depends on people being willing to apply simple common sense. Rules are fine. The problem comes when they are so inflexible that there is no allowance for the variations that occur in real life.
Anyone who can not understand that there are times when there either is no applicable rule, or that there are times when the rule does not fit the situation, really has no business being responsible for enforcing it.
NOTICE too, that this student was not punished for the phone call, he was punished for his reaction to what one teacher did (which is fine). So, apparently, the school administration feels that the No Phonecall rule did NOT apply to this special case. They were able to see that the rules can be lifted when necessary.
