You must log in or register to comment.
“Zero tolerance” policy on fighting. Any “active” participation resulted in automatic suspension. That part sounds fine, but active participation included things like holding up your hands in self defense or trying to push the person sitting on your chest while punching you in the face off of you.
I really don’t understand why schools have this rule (at least in many places in the US). Are they trying to teach you to not practice self defense and just let it happen? Doesn’t sound like a great thing to teach.
Looking at it from the other side, it’s actually rare that an innocent kid is beat up without context.
Usually there’s 2 kids that have a beef and have been egging each other on for days. Eventually one kid says something and the other kid snaps and makes the first move but the second kid was just as guilty.
If you only look at “who started it” the second kid gets off scot free, while the first kid gets punished. Not really fair.
"Zero tolerance " attempts to fix this by recognizing that both kids likely played a part.
You are delusional to the highest degree. Kids in school don’t fight even, it’s one-sided 99% of the time.
The reason for this (and the rule) is bullying. Bullies fight bullied, and everyone gets suspended because “they were fighting”. Since you announced in advance that was the policy, this enables you to conveniently ignore the bullying that has taken place, and instead act as if all bullying-related fights (read: all fights pretty much) are simple fights that do not require any more attention because the issue has been dealth with with punishment.
In turn, this means that a bully who already has a bad rap and generally doesn’t care about grades or standing with school admin because both are already at rock bottom can target any one kid and make their admin standing rock bottom because it will appear as if that kid is fighting all the time and constantly suspended.
There’s no “other side”. The kid who initiated violence is the one in the wrong, even if the other one has been egging him on. “Oh but what if the egging on is one sided and the kid can’t take it anymore?” That is a symptom of your bullying reporting being garbage, not of the natural order of kids. If that kid is taking it out violently it means they’ve tried every other avenue including telling an adult and nothing has changed.
My high school had a rule about the “difficulty” of books you could read. You weren’t supposed to read too high “above your grade”. I assumed this rule was something with the school library and their Accelerated Reader program.
Nope! Tried to give me ISS because I was reading “Screwjack”, which I brought from home. It wasn’t even in class! I was a fucking junior. A high school junior should be able to handle Hunter S. Thompson.
According to them it was “college level” and therefore I shouldn’t be reading it. My father raised absolute hell in that office. Don’t think they tried enforcing that rule again.
They also tried bitching about girls tops until a group of very pissed off redneck fathers had questions about how they were touching the students to measure the width.
I get the fact that reading too high above your grade means you may be way over your head in vocabulary and grammar, but it’s not entirely applicable to everyone. I read Pride and Prejudice and one friend said I sounded posh from the language I accidentally started using. So if a high schooler or junior high schooler can handle it, why not?
It’s not enforced by my schools, but when I was little, speaking local languages at school was forbidden. It’s getting better now, but at that time, only the official language was allowed.
Another rule was boys weren’t allowed to wear longer hairs. If the hairline was below the ears, they would be asked to cut it shorter. From time to time, boys from my class were forced to cut their hair during classes with the company of a teacher.
Not a rule, but some stupid thing that was allowed to slip by for way too long.
My highschool’s firewall would often block the most innocuous websites, but that somehow did not include Pornhub. While they did eventually add it in, by that point it had been a known thing for years with even multiple cases of students going on it during classes.
My school had the same thing. In fifth grade I had to give a presentation about computer viruses, but the firewall even blocked the standard Wikipedia article for it. Porn however? No problem!
No listening to music during breaks. If you were caught with headphones on you without even using them, you could face punishment.
At my high school, we basically had no enforcement of the dress code except for one incident. For context, everyone wore hats, crop tops, shorts, and stuff kinda like Euphoria. Certain teachers and administrators would ask you to take off your hat, but I haven’t heard anyone get dress coded until senior year.
My school had a small trend where the senior guys would wear crop tops which lasted a few days until we heard that they banned guys wearing crop tops to school and dress coded one of the guys wearing them. Keep in mind, the girls could and did wear crop tops and no one dress coded them. Kinda ironic considering that the majority of dress code enforcement is towards girls, but the only time someone got dress coded (to my knowledge) in my four years of high school, it was a guy.
My school strictly prohibits vehicle use, and considers all violations a strong offense that is on a three-strikes out rule.
Yes, it includes e-scooters and swan boats.
Yes, it includes whether you are in uniform or not.
Yes, it includes whether you are in school or not.
Yes, even if you are licensed.
Yes, it is enforceable anywhere.
The rule is obnoxiously blanket.
The dumbest rule that fortunately was only “tried” to be enforced was no gun racks in the student vehicles in the parking lot. This is was a rural area where for almost a hundred years people would have guns in the gun-racks in their trucks mostly. But with fire arm thefts etc it was pretty rare to actually have a gun loaded or unloaded in the gun-rack. Generally you’d just have the gun in the rack if you were hunting, or patrolling your ranch or whatever.
Then Columbine happened and suddenly gun-racks and leather trench coats, aka dusters, another extremely common piece of clothing in a rural ranching town were priority number one by reactionary’s. Hundreds of otherwise lawful students were suspended, ticketed, arrested etc and finally after several months I assume someone had a “are we the baddies?” moment, and coupled with hundreds of lawsuits, the school system got a new superintendent and suddenly gun racks and dusters were back to being treated as the mundane items they are.
But with fire arm thefts etc it was pretty rare to actually have a gun loaded or unloaded in the gun-rack.
So what you’re saying is, people did - rarely - leave guns unattended in a car? Students no less?And that is legal? Murica gets more absurd every time I read about it.
Under no circumstances in the wrold would I leave my unsecured guns in a car.
I mean generally I agree with you, but much like you have your phone with you constantly, you will sometimes leave it somewhere you normally wouldn’t accidentally. So if you’ve had the gun in your truck all day, you may just leave it in the rack once in a while. As for “students” yea, it would be pretty weird to grow up in that area and not be very familiar with firearms. It would be like being amazed and surprised that most students had been driving since they were 14, or were riding horses at 8. It’s pretty mundane.
No I won’t leave my gun “accidentally” anywhere. Handling a gun means “accidentally” is not part of your vocabulary.
I’m a gun owner myself, so I’m not the pearl clutching type but this is genuinely unthinkable to me. Absurd and a little scary, to be honest.
You sound like the bad guy in the original story. Just totally out of touch such that it is “unthinkable” that a bunch of students wouldn’t ascribe greater reverence to objects that at the end of the day are just mundane tools.
