Question that’s been bouncing around my head for those of you that are K-12 teachers: how does a student’s right to self defense work in that setting?
I read about zero tolerance policies in the news but I also presume (wrongly?) that everyone, including minors, has some minimum right self defense. I assume this is discussed in detail at the K-12 teacher level. Care to enlighten me?
This is not discussed and is roughly 23409823058th on our list of things we think about.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
That organization was founded as an anti-public-health movement. As interest in the pandemic waned they branched into DeSantis' culture war in an attempt to stay relevant. Part of making that jump was deciding mental health care wasn't just public healthcare - which, again, is intrinsically bad to MFL - but also leftist coddling and is therefore woke CRT communism that reprograms kids into being trans or whatever this week's specific wharrgarbl is.
its always still incredible to me that people could be that ghoulish (anti-public health, anti-mental health care), especially towards kids
It is a parent's right to let their children be a miserable pile of untreated issues, apparently.
That organization was founded as an anti-public-health movement. As interest in the pandemic waned they branched into DeSantis' culture war in an attempt to stay relevant. Part of making that jump was deciding mental health care wasn't just public healthcare - which, again, is intrinsically bad to MFL - but also leftist coddling and is therefore woke CRT communism that reprograms kids into being trans or whatever this week's specific wharrgarbl is.
its always still incredible to me that people could be that ghoulish (anti-public health, anti-mental health care), especially towards kids
It is a parent's right to let their children be a miserable pile of untreated issues, apparently.
Sure is interesting how often the whole "children are my personal chattel, not people" mindset results in that kind of outcome...
But this only applies to them, of course. For conservatives, their children belong to them and they should get to treat them however they want.
But if you're not a conservative and you want to like, affirm your child's gender identity or don't want your child to be taught the Bible in school for whatever reason well
You can go fuck yourself
Lord_Asmodeus on
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
That organization was founded as an anti-public-health movement. As interest in the pandemic waned they branched into DeSantis' culture war in an attempt to stay relevant. Part of making that jump was deciding mental health care wasn't just public healthcare - which, again, is intrinsically bad to MFL - but also leftist coddling and is therefore woke CRT communism that reprograms kids into being trans or whatever this week's specific wharrgarbl is.
its always still incredible to me that people could be that ghoulish (anti-public health, anti-mental health care), especially towards kids
It is a parent's right to let their children be a miserable pile of untreated issues, apparently.
Sure is interesting how often the whole "children are my personal chattel, not people" mindset results in that kind of outcome...
But this only applies to them, of course. For conservatives, their children belong to them and they should get to treat them however they want.
But if you're not a conservative and you want to like, affirm your child's gender identity or don't want your child to be taught the Bible in school for whatever reason well
You can go fuck yourself
Part of the "my child is chattel" mindset is "I need absolute control over anything my child could be exposed to," which in practice means they think everyone else's children need to submit to their rules as well.
AP Psych is basically banned in Florida for daring to talk about gender and sexuality.
School boards were told they could offer the course as long as the College Board agreed to remove any mentions of race, gender or sexuality, which the CB of course refused to do.
At this point it's actually banned, not just basically so, since they're sticking to their guns on the unmodified course and that course is illegal.
Kind of marveling at seeing the phrase "topics forbidden by the state" in a news article...
AP Psych is basically banned in Florida for daring to talk about gender and sexuality.
School boards were told they could offer the course as long as the College Board agreed to remove any mentions of race, gender or sexuality, which the CB of course refused to do.
At this point it's actually banned, not just basically so, since they're sticking to their guns on the unmodified course and that course is illegal.
Kind of marveling at seeing the phrase "topics forbidden by the state" in a news article...
Seems like more a malicious compliance thing at the moment by some districts?
Like telling 16-18 year olds that knowledge is forbidden to them definitely doesn't seem the way you would ever dissuade them from looking into it.
We must start with confessions. When I was a student, I spent a lot of time with academics. I got drunk with academics and was more formally wined and dined by them. I went on holiday with faculty (in the Alpine chalet used by three Oxford colleges). And, yes, I was seduced by them.
When I was a young lecturer living on campus, I played sport with students, got drunk with students and made love with students. All of this seemed entirely normal on the campus of a new university in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
Do I consider myself to have been either harassed or harmed by any of my student experiences? No. Do I consider myself to have harmed or harassed students? Again, no. I fully concede that others might have felt differently, but circumstantial evidence suggests that this isn’t the case: thanks to 21st-century technology, I am still in touch with a majority of those with whom I was intimate. They are all very friendly. That is even true, most days, of the woman I have been married to for 48 years.
To many people, including me, these liaisons felt like emancipation from the world our parents had lived in. There were dangers, of course, and not everybody gained from the new rules – certainly not to an equal degree. But my reality was of educational, emancipatory relationships with older people in the context of the university.
That sound you hear is my head banging into the wall to make the hurting stop.
We must start with confessions. When I was a student, I spent a lot of time with academics. I got drunk with academics and was more formally wined and dined by them. I went on holiday with faculty (in the Alpine chalet used by three Oxford colleges). And, yes, I was seduced by them.
When I was a young lecturer living on campus, I played sport with students, got drunk with students and made love with students. All of this seemed entirely normal on the campus of a new university in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
Do I consider myself to have been either harassed or harmed by any of my student experiences? No. Do I consider myself to have harmed or harassed students? Again, no. I fully concede that others might have felt differently, but circumstantial evidence suggests that this isn’t the case: thanks to 21st-century technology, I am still in touch with a majority of those with whom I was intimate. They are all very friendly. That is even true, most days, of the woman I have been married to for 48 years.
To many people, including me, these liaisons felt like emancipation from the world our parents had lived in. There were dangers, of course, and not everybody gained from the new rules – certainly not to an equal degree. But my reality was of educational, emancipatory relationships with older people in the context of the university.
That sound you hear is my head banging into the wall to make the hurting stop.
ohh come on at least scroll down and read the whole article before posting, cause this gem is just a few paragraphs down.
For instance, two people can behave in the same way and the action can have different meanings for the recipient. My most vivid example is about university staff rather than students. Professor A, long established in the department, could go into the office where the secretaries worked and address them by endearments such as “precious” and “petal” and they adored him. Professor B, newly arrived, perhaps trying to fit in with what he saw as the informal mores of the department, behaved in a similar way, but succeeded only in eliciting comments along the lines of “That guy gives me the creeps”. There was an attempt to have procedures taken against him. Professor A was regarded as “eccentric”, “lovable”, “avuncular” and highly amusing. When he died, far too young, former students recounted at his memorial event how he had variously shouted at them and cuddled them and they’d loved him for it.
Look deep down the womenfolk love being called toots and sugar tits.
We must start with confessions. When I was a student, I spent a lot of time with academics. I got drunk with academics and was more formally wined and dined by them. I went on holiday with faculty (in the Alpine chalet used by three Oxford colleges). And, yes, I was seduced by them.
When I was a young lecturer living on campus, I played sport with students, got drunk with students and made love with students. All of this seemed entirely normal on the campus of a new university in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
Do I consider myself to have been either harassed or harmed by any of my student experiences? No. Do I consider myself to have harmed or harassed students? Again, no. I fully concede that others might have felt differently, but circumstantial evidence suggests that this isn’t the case: thanks to 21st-century technology, I am still in touch with a majority of those with whom I was intimate. They are all very friendly. That is even true, most days, of the woman I have been married to for 48 years.
To many people, including me, these liaisons felt like emancipation from the world our parents had lived in. There were dangers, of course, and not everybody gained from the new rules – certainly not to an equal degree. But my reality was of educational, emancipatory relationships with older people in the context of the university.
That sound you hear is my head banging into the wall to make the hurting stop.
ohh come on at least scroll down and read the whole article before posting, cause this gem is just a few paragraphs down.
For instance, two people can behave in the same way and the action can have different meanings for the recipient. My most vivid example is about university staff rather than students. Professor A, long established in the department, could go into the office where the secretaries worked and address them by endearments such as “precious” and “petal” and they adored him. Professor B, newly arrived, perhaps trying to fit in with what he saw as the informal mores of the department, behaved in a similar way, but succeeded only in eliciting comments along the lines of “That guy gives me the creeps”. There was an attempt to have procedures taken against him. Professor A was regarded as “eccentric”, “lovable”, “avuncular” and highly amusing. When he died, far too young, former students recounted at his memorial event how he had variously shouted at them and cuddled them and they’d loved him for it.
Look deep down the womenfolk love being called toots and sugar tits.
I mean, the whole "debate" is between a clueless elderly male academic who cannot comprehend how a system designed to protect him harms others to do so versus an actual fucking victim of said system:
I used to feel this way, but I learned the hard way about the damage caused by staff-student relationships, having once upon a time been groomed by a charming academic who taught me during my undergraduate studies.
I have written about this story elsewhere, but the short version is that we did eventually date and he went on to supervise my PhD. We broke up a few months into my doctoral studies because I was unhappy with the secret nature of our relationship and his refusal to let me change supervisors. He, meanwhile, made it clear that I could never tell anyone about our relationship history or he would ruin my academic career: “No one will ever take you seriously, and your PhD will be worthless,” he said. This left me trapped with him as my PhD supervisor and ex-boyfriend rolled into one, a particularly ghastly situation when he began dating my second supervisor.
It wasn’t until a few years after my PhD that I realised the severity of what had happened. Even then, I did not feel able to tell anyone, and instead wrote an anonymous story to contribute to the wider discussion around misconduct in academia. There was no recourse for justice because we had both left the university where I undertook my PhD, and there had been no policy around relationships between staff and students at the time we dated.
Even today, there is not much I can do to raise my concerns around his behaviour because there is no national policy under which I could report him. I’m not alone, of course – only one in 10 respondents to a recent 1752 Group study who had experienced staff sexual misconduct had reported it to their institution.
But such misconduct is not rare. A recent investigation by the University of Bristol’s student paper, Epigram, found that some staff members are quite brazen about their intentions, with students reporting being targeted on dating apps that allow users to set an age preference. Tutors boasted about having sex with students when first messaging them.
We must start with confessions. When I was a student, I spent a lot of time with academics. I got drunk with academics and was more formally wined and dined by them. I went on holiday with faculty (in the Alpine chalet used by three Oxford colleges). And, yes, I was seduced by them.
When I was a young lecturer living on campus, I played sport with students, got drunk with students and made love with students. All of this seemed entirely normal on the campus of a new university in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
Do I consider myself to have been either harassed or harmed by any of my student experiences? No. Do I consider myself to have harmed or harassed students? Again, no. I fully concede that others might have felt differently, but circumstantial evidence suggests that this isn’t the case: thanks to 21st-century technology, I am still in touch with a majority of those with whom I was intimate. They are all very friendly. That is even true, most days, of the woman I have been married to for 48 years.
To many people, including me, these liaisons felt like emancipation from the world our parents had lived in. There were dangers, of course, and not everybody gained from the new rules – certainly not to an equal degree. But my reality was of educational, emancipatory relationships with older people in the context of the university.
That sound you hear is my head banging into the wall to make the hurting stop.
ohh come on at least scroll down and read the whole article before posting, cause this gem is just a few paragraphs down.
For instance, two people can behave in the same way and the action can have different meanings for the recipient. My most vivid example is about university staff rather than students. Professor A, long established in the department, could go into the office where the secretaries worked and address them by endearments such as “precious” and “petal” and they adored him. Professor B, newly arrived, perhaps trying to fit in with what he saw as the informal mores of the department, behaved in a similar way, but succeeded only in eliciting comments along the lines of “That guy gives me the creeps”. There was an attempt to have procedures taken against him. Professor A was regarded as “eccentric”, “lovable”, “avuncular” and highly amusing. When he died, far too young, former students recounted at his memorial event how he had variously shouted at them and cuddled them and they’d loved him for it.
Look deep down the womenfolk love being called toots and sugar tits.
I mean, the whole "debate" is between a clueless elderly male academic who cannot comprehend how a system designed to protect him harms others to do so versus an actual fucking victim of said system:
I used to feel this way, but I learned the hard way about the damage caused by staff-student relationships, having once upon a time been groomed by a charming academic who taught me during my undergraduate studies.
I have written about this story elsewhere, but the short version is that we did eventually date and he went on to supervise my PhD. We broke up a few months into my doctoral studies because I was unhappy with the secret nature of our relationship and his refusal to let me change supervisors. He, meanwhile, made it clear that I could never tell anyone about our relationship history or he would ruin my academic career: “No one will ever take you seriously, and your PhD will be worthless,” he said. This left me trapped with him as my PhD supervisor and ex-boyfriend rolled into one, a particularly ghastly situation when he began dating my second supervisor.
It wasn’t until a few years after my PhD that I realised the severity of what had happened. Even then, I did not feel able to tell anyone, and instead wrote an anonymous story to contribute to the wider discussion around misconduct in academia. There was no recourse for justice because we had both left the university where I undertook my PhD, and there had been no policy around relationships between staff and students at the time we dated.
Even today, there is not much I can do to raise my concerns around his behaviour because there is no national policy under which I could report him. I’m not alone, of course – only one in 10 respondents to a recent 1752 Group study who had experienced staff sexual misconduct had reported it to their institution.
But such misconduct is not rare. A recent investigation by the University of Bristol’s student paper, Epigram, found that some staff members are quite brazen about their intentions, with students reporting being targeted on dating apps that allow users to set an age preference. Tutors boasted about having sex with students when first messaging them.
Again, why/how the fuck is this a debate?
its still a debate because misogynists in positions of power will clutch to their 'rights' to be horny abusers of power
Look, if we don't let academics bang young hotties they are teaching or supervising, no one is gonna wanna go into academia. And then we'll fall behind.
That the only person they apparently could find willing to write that side of the 'debate' was a retiree approaching 80 is pretty telling. Especially given how poor his arguments are, half of the things he starts to argue end up concluding with "I would have been in so much trouble because I was getting laid all the time".
That said, I found this part interesting.
This concerns “any member of staff…who has direct or indirect responsibilities, or other direct professional responsibilities, for a student”.
On “romantic intimacy”, I would be intrigued to know how long a debate you could have on its meaning. And I cannot pass over the word “professional” without comment. I used to object when anyone referred to academic employees as “professionals” because university life lacks the defining criteria of professionalism: common norms and purposes, specific entry criteria and so on. It is about vocation and community, Gemeinschaft rather than Gesellschaft. I taught and wrote with no qualification or training to do either.
Because, I've gotten the impression from various biographies and other such stuff I've read that colleges back then were less corporatized(?) than they are now. Like there was a level of informality that I just can't fathom given the scale of the administration at colleges now.
That the only person they apparently could find willing to write that side of the 'debate' was a retiree approaching 80 is pretty telling. Especially given how poor his arguments are, half of the things he starts to argue end up concluding with "I would have been in so much trouble because I was getting laid all the time".
That said, I found this part interesting.
This concerns “any member of staff…who has direct or indirect responsibilities, or other direct professional responsibilities, for a student”.
On “romantic intimacy”, I would be intrigued to know how long a debate you could have on its meaning. And I cannot pass over the word “professional” without comment. I used to object when anyone referred to academic employees as “professionals” because university life lacks the defining criteria of professionalism: common norms and purposes, specific entry criteria and so on. It is about vocation and community, Gemeinschaft rather than Gesellschaft. I taught and wrote with no qualification or training to do either.
Because, I've gotten the impression from various biographies and other such stuff I've read that colleges back then were less corporatized(?) than they are now. Like there was a level of informality that I just can't fathom given the scale of the administration at colleges now.
Yeah, I think that's a whole lot of rose-colored opportunistic bullshit. There's always been school administration that wondered, "What have you done for us lately" especially when it came to research and securing grants to fund them. Which requires there to be a certain kind of professionalism in order to get said research published, recognized, and above all else, paid. Maybe it's less done elsewhere, but in the US, tenure came from the need of schools to keep their teachers from being politically hounded thanks to the numerous Red Scares. Thanks to that, there came requirements that you have to teach one subject or another for years, have expertise and recognition in your field, and so on and so forth. All of which point to the concept of "professionalism".
That side of the editorial is doing a post-hoc exercise on why they felt it was okay to take advantage of students through attempting to say they were never in a position of power over them. That their professorship was more like an internship. That everyone was equal so it was okay to have sex with them. When it was certainly not equal and giving the any kind of recognition would be extremely perilous since that means he done a bad thing and he's a good guy!
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
Dudes get really mad at the idea that they aren't sex gods and the reason why their subordinates never said no is that they were scared shitless of doing so because they could ruin their carrers.
Not to mention the amount of financial obligations and commitments of students in the past compared to currently.
Back in the 60’s to probably the 80’s changing institutions to escape a predator was a much less daunting prospect
I mean to a small degree, but even then for a grad student pursuing a PhD it still could represent years of lost time and if they really went scorched earth a blow your academic career would never recover from.
And a lot of those fields were small enough, networked enough, and limited enough in spots - especially for women - that an advisor or faculty member could make changing institutions difficult if not impossible with just a few words to the right people with no recourse for the student.
It's difficult to see where in a life of academia you're supposed to develop any sort of relationship without risking your career progress. Best I can tell, a significant break during educational transitions probably
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
It's difficult to see where in a life of academia you're supposed to develop any sort of relationship without risking your career progress. Best I can tell, a significant break during educational transitions probably
Or just...people not in the exact same lab as you? Or at least not your subordinates?
It's difficult to see where in a life of academia you're supposed to develop any sort of relationship without risking your career progress. Best I can tell, a significant break during educational transitions probably
Or just...people not in the exact same lab as you? Or at least not your subordinates?
The whole power harrassment thing is a big issue, but another more common big issue is that there's no time when you're at the bottom rung of academia for anything other than the lab, the book, the manuscript.
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
+2
Options
Zonugal(He/Him) The Holiday ArmadilloI'm Santa's representative for all the southern states. And Mexico!Registered Userregular
Question that’s been bouncing around my head for those of you that are K-12 teachers: how does a student’s right to self defense work in that setting?
I read about zero tolerance policies in the news but I also presume (wrongly?) that everyone, including minors, has some minimum right self defense. I assume this is discussed in detail at the K-12 teacher level. Care to enlighten me?
The moment a student uses violence they're open to administrative/district consequences.
Is this ever discussed? Oh, no.
Why is this never discussed? Because every reasonable person would immediately recognize it as bullshit, but because it's the current system in place, everyone seemingly avoids discussion of it.
Unless you're my social studies teacher in high school who instructed his students, "The moment you are being attacked, you're likely to be suspended, so, you may as well start throwing fists regardless."
I may be a little too slow in the head to understand the responses to my "self defense" question. When enlightenedbum responded, I took it to mean that my question was kind of dumb and inappropriate. Obviously students can defend themselves and why would anybody even talk about that? But when I read Zonugal, I get more of a vibe that school districts prohibit self defense and nobody talks about it because they don't want to think too hard about their own complicity.
For context, I spent almost all my K-12 education in Germany. But now I have my children entering American kindergarten and I am trying to understanding all the little cultural nuances and social norms that are just sort of understood by everyone involved because they themselves went through the system. The presentations from the superintendent etc I have gone to seem to devote quite a bit of time to discipline issues and fights in schools. There are a lot of murmurs of agreement in the parent audience. So I guess fighting is a thing in American K-12, or at least in my school district? I want to gain an understanding of the situation I'm sending my kids into.
enc0re on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I may be a little too slow in the head to understand the responses to my "self defense" question. When enlightenedbum responded, I took it to mean that my question was kind of dumb and inappropriate. Obviously students can defend themselves and why would anybody even talk about that? But when I read Zonugal, I get more of a vibe that school districts prohibit self defense and nobody talks about it because they don't want to think too hard about their own complicity.
For context, I spent almost all my K-12 education in Germany. But now I have my children entering American kindergarten and I am trying to understanding all the little cultural nuances and social norms that are just sort of understood by everyone involved because they themselves went through the system. The presentations from the superintendent etc I have gone to seem to devote quite a bit of time to discipline issues and fights in schools. There are a lot of murmurs of agreement in the parent audience. So I guess fighting is a thing in American K-12, or at least in my school district? I want to gain an understanding of the situation I'm sending my kids into.
A lot of schools districts are lazy or the parents of bullies are irritating and annoying or rich, so they just institute zero-tolerance policies so everyone gets in trouble so they don't actually have to make a decision or determination.
It'd vary by location and poverty level, I went to a suburban public school at witnessed one fight that went further than shoving. (Said fight ended when the school resource officer put a hand on the shoulder of the aggressor, who turned and punched him without thought, after which the officer put him in a hold and ended things instantly). The self defense thing only comes into play in that a zero tolerance policy generally has both parties suspended regardless of the details, vs the state of self defense in public which may or may not have overly broad 'stand your ground' laws in place.
0
Options
Zonugal(He/Him) The Holiday ArmadilloI'm Santa's representative for all the southern states. And Mexico!Registered Userregular
I may be a little too slow in the head to understand the responses to my "self defense" question. When enlightenedbum responded, I took it to mean that my question was kind of dumb and inappropriate. Obviously students can defend themselves and why would anybody even talk about that? But when I read Zonugal, I get more of a vibe that school districts prohibit self defense and nobody talks about it because they don't want to think too hard about their own complicity.
For context, I spent almost all my K-12 education in Germany. But now I have my children entering American kindergarten and I am trying to understanding all the little cultural nuances and social norms that are just sort of understood by everyone involved because they themselves went through the system. The presentations from the superintendent etc I have gone to seem to devote quite a bit of time to discipline issues and fights in schools. There are a lot of murmurs of agreement in the parent audience. So I guess fighting is a thing in American K-12, or at least in my school district? I want to gain an understanding of the situation I'm sending my kids into.
If your kid uses any amount of violence, even in self-defense, they will be sent home.
That is, in my experience as an educator, the blanket policy for public schools.
That's generally a non-negotiable. Where the discussion goes from there is how long a suspension lasts based on the type of violence used.
I may be a little too slow in the head to understand the responses to my "self defense" question. When enlightenedbum responded, I took it to mean that my question was kind of dumb and inappropriate. Obviously students can defend themselves and why would anybody even talk about that? But when I read Zonugal, I get more of a vibe that school districts prohibit self defense and nobody talks about it because they don't want to think too hard about their own complicity.
For context, I spent almost all my K-12 education in Germany. But now I have my children entering American kindergarten and I am trying to understanding all the little cultural nuances and social norms that are just sort of understood by everyone involved because they themselves went through the system. The presentations from the superintendent etc I have gone to seem to devote quite a bit of time to discipline issues and fights in schools. There are a lot of murmurs of agreement in the parent audience. So I guess fighting is a thing in American K-12, or at least in my school district? I want to gain an understanding of the situation I'm sending my kids into.
If your kid uses any amount of violence, even in self-defense, they will be sent home.
That is, in my experience as an educator, the blanket policy for public schools.
That's generally a non-negotiable. Where the discussion goes from there is how long a suspension lasts based on the type of violence used.
American adults have the right to shoot and kill anyone who looks at them funny.
OK, break it down for me: what is the appropriate way to react for a student if being attacked? I have to tell my children that their physical safety comes first, right? I wish I could ask that question at the meet and greet with the principal. But I am concerned it would immediately brand me as a problem parent and/or student. When really, this is me lacking the necessary cultural background.
EDIT: I wasn't able to find anything in the elementary school parent handbook. But I did find a policy in the district-wide handbook. Should have known there was another handbook! This is in the serious misconduct (level II) section.
RESPONSE TO A PHYSICAL ATTACK-Any action of responding to a physical attack in a combative response that is not defined as self-defense. Self-defense is described as an action to block an attack by another person or to shield yourself from being hit by another person. If the retaliation meets this definition, then there will be no consequence. Retaliating by hitting a person back is not self-defense and consequences outlined in the Code should be followed.
I gotta say, this doesn't sit well with me. If you are attacked you are supposed to "block" and "shield". Sounds like a recipe for being essentially a defenseless victim.
OK, break it down for me: what is the appropriate way to react for a student if being attacked? I have to tell my children that their physical safety comes first, right? I wish I could ask that question at the meet and greet with the principal. But I am concerned it would immediately brand me as a problem parent and/or student. When really, this is me lacking the necessary cultural background.
EDIT: I wasn't able to find anything in the elementary school parent handbook. But I did find a policy in the district-wide handbook. Should have known there was another handbook! This is in the serious misconduct (level II) section.
RESPONSE TO A PHYSICAL ATTACK-Any action of responding to a physical attack in a combative response that is not defined as self-defense. Self-defense is described as an action to block an attack by another person or to shield yourself from being hit by another person. If the retaliation meets this definition, then there will be no consequence. Retaliating by hitting a person back is not self-defense and consequences outlined in the Code should be followed.
I gotta say, this doesn't sit well with me. If you are attacked you are supposed to "block" and "shield". Sounds like a recipe for being essentially a defenseless victim.
It absolutely fucking is, and these policies teach kids that you're not allowed to fight back to protect yourself, which has long term deleterious consequences. Furthermore, these policies are often put in place because schools turn a blind eye to abuse. It's a shitshow, to put it mildly, and I'm glad my parents made sure to let me know that defending myself would always be acceptable in their eyes.
Is this legally defensible policy? Or is this one of those “not liable for damage in parking garage” signs that you can put in your code of conduct but that has no legal weight?
Is this legally defensible policy? Or is this one of those “not liable for damage in parking garage” signs that you can put in your code of conduct but that has no legal weight?
The sad part is that the answer is "it depends." That said, these sorts of incidents aren't one off incidents but tend to be the culmination of a history of abuse that the school turned a blind eye to - and if the family has documentation of that, they can make the principal's life miserable.
OK, break it down for me: what is the appropriate way to react for a student if being attacked? I have to tell my children that their physical safety comes first, right? I wish I could ask that question at the meet and greet with the principal. But I am concerned it would immediately brand me as a problem parent and/or student. When really, this is me lacking the necessary cultural background.
EDIT: I wasn't able to find anything in the elementary school parent handbook. But I did find a policy in the district-wide handbook. Should have known there was another handbook! This is in the serious misconduct (level II) section.
RESPONSE TO A PHYSICAL ATTACK-Any action of responding to a physical attack in a combative response that is not defined as self-defense. Self-defense is described as an action to block an attack by another person or to shield yourself from being hit by another person. If the retaliation meets this definition, then there will be no consequence. Retaliating by hitting a person back is not self-defense and consequences outlined in the Code should be followed.
I gotta say, this doesn't sit well with me. If you are attacked you are supposed to "block" and "shield". Sounds like a recipe for being essentially a defenseless victim.
This is correct.
In practice back in the day if a kid started shit and the guy being picked on clocked the instigator, the teacher may well have said "yeah I saw the whole thing, you fell down with your hands in your pockets and landed on your nose." The "you little shit" may or may not have been left implied depending on the general give-a-fuckness of the teacher.
There's a lot more cameras around these days so I doubt that flies the way it used to, but
Presumably no teacher would comply with such a policy. Otherwise they would be putting their job security ahead of literal children’s physical security. When said children look up to the teacher as a source of wisdom.
Presumably no teacher would comply with such a policy. Otherwise they would be putting their job security ahead of literal children’s physical security. When said children look up to the teacher as a source of wisdom.
(sighs in bullied child who suffered from undiagnosed at the time depression)
You would be surprised how many teachers view divergence from what is considered the "norm" to be justification for peer abuse.
That sort of policy is why many of us have stories of parents going "Look, don't start anything but if they do beat the shit out of them and we'll handle it later."
+11
Options
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
OK, break it down for me: what is the appropriate way to react for a student if being attacked? I have to tell my children that their physical safety comes first, right? I wish I could ask that question at the meet and greet with the principal. But I am concerned it would immediately brand me as a problem parent and/or student. When really, this is me lacking the necessary cultural background.
EDIT: I wasn't able to find anything in the elementary school parent handbook. But I did find a policy in the district-wide handbook. Should have known there was another handbook! This is in the serious misconduct (level II) section.
RESPONSE TO A PHYSICAL ATTACK-Any action of responding to a physical attack in a combative response that is not defined as self-defense. Self-defense is described as an action to block an attack by another person or to shield yourself from being hit by another person. If the retaliation meets this definition, then there will be no consequence. Retaliating by hitting a person back is not self-defense and consequences outlined in the Code should be followed.
I gotta say, this doesn't sit well with me. If you are attacked you are supposed to "block" and "shield". Sounds like a recipe for being essentially a defenseless victim.
I've told my daughter that. Basically "if someone is bullying you, walk away. If they get physical, try and get away. But if you can't get away, fight back and end it. You will never be in trouble with me if you do.
So far it's only resulted in her verbally shutting down a kid three grades above her on the bus. She's always been really tall so she tends to look out for her friends. But sure knows that I'm always back her up as long as she wasn't the aggressor.
Is this legally defensible policy? Or is this one of those “not liable for damage in parking garage” signs that you can put in your code of conduct but that has no legal weight?
Yes, because most parents aren't going to pay for a lawyer over a couple days suspension. And IANAL but in general as long as there is a written policy that is followed, and no not too much underlying discrimination, courts will let schools 'govern' themselves.
Like unless you get arrested or join the military the US school system is the most authoritarian thing most people will ever interact with. Take something like afterschool or weekend detention. Basically mini-prison sentences based of some teacher/administrators whim. Bathroom passes? Yeah I've never worked somewhere I needed to ask to take a piss. Bunch of states require drug screening of student-athletes-not for PEDs but for weed etc. Uniforms and dress codes. My HS school we weren't allowed to drink anything but water or eat anything in class. Some teachers were cool(those who had HS aged boys who never stopped eating, or their own caffeine addictions), some were petty tyrants.
I think my favorite bit is whenever admin somewhere try to implement campus cellphone bans, and the parents invariably lose their shit on the admin because they are so used to being able to get a hold of their kids whenever.
+6
Options
Zonugal(He/Him) The Holiday ArmadilloI'm Santa's representative for all the southern states. And Mexico!Registered Userregular
OK, break it down for me: what is the appropriate way to react for a student if being attacked? I have to tell my children that their physical safety comes first, right?
You tell your child to try to find a safe way out of the confrontation, and if they can't, they defend themselves with physical force. "A two day suspension is going to be better than a broken arm."
Which you, their parent, are allowed to do. I as a professional educator can't do that, as it opens me up to a whole slew of legal issues.
I wish I could ask that question at the meet and greet with the principal. But I am concerned it would immediately brand me as a problem parent and/or student. When really, this is me lacking the necessary cultural background.
Nah, you can ask. You can also bring it up at a school board meeting (where it can actually be worked on).
I gotta say, this doesn't sit well with me. If you are attacked you are supposed to "block" and "shield". Sounds like a recipe for being essentially a defenseless victim.
Oh, it's pure bullshit. It's designed entirely to offer an across-the-line disciplinary action for all fights so that admin don't have to dispense non-uniform consequences to all involved parties (which may open the school up to legal retaliation).
I hate the idea of telling my child that their teacher or school policy is wrong. I want my children to be able to trust their teachers as they would trust me. I had total confidence in my German primary and secondary teachers that they would do the right thing to the best of their judgment in any situation, policy or rules being a distant secondary concern.
0
Options
Zonugal(He/Him) The Holiday ArmadilloI'm Santa's representative for all the southern states. And Mexico!Registered Userregular
I hate the idea of telling my child that their teacher or school policy is wrong. I want my children to be able to trust their teachers as they would trust me. I had total confidence in my German primary and secondary teachers that they would do the right thing to the best of their judgment in any situation, policy or rules being a distant secondary concern.
How sue happy is Germany?
Cause, uh...
I can't alter the district rules within the realm of my classroom and I certainly won't put my career at risk to tell a child something you are absolutely free to do over dinner.
Posts
This is not discussed and is roughly 23409823058th on our list of things we think about.
But this only applies to them, of course. For conservatives, their children belong to them and they should get to treat them however they want.
But if you're not a conservative and you want to like, affirm your child's gender identity or don't want your child to be taught the Bible in school for whatever reason well
You can go fuck yourself
Part of the "my child is chattel" mindset is "I need absolute control over anything my child could be exposed to," which in practice means they think everyone else's children need to submit to their rules as well.
School boards were told they could offer the course as long as the College Board agreed to remove any mentions of race, gender or sexuality, which the CB of course refused to do.
At this point it's actually banned, not just basically so, since they're sticking to their guns on the unmodified course and that course is illegal.
Kind of marveling at seeing the phrase "topics forbidden by the state" in a news article...
Seems like more a malicious compliance thing at the moment by some districts?
Like telling 16-18 year olds that knowledge is forbidden to them definitely doesn't seem the way you would ever dissuade them from looking into it.
That sound you hear is my head banging into the wall to make the hurting stop.
ohh come on at least scroll down and read the whole article before posting, cause this gem is just a few paragraphs down.
Look deep down the womenfolk love being called toots and sugar tits.
I mean, the whole "debate" is between a clueless elderly male academic who cannot comprehend how a system designed to protect him harms others to do so versus an actual fucking victim of said system:
Again, why/how the fuck is this a debate?
its still a debate because misogynists in positions of power will clutch to their 'rights' to be horny abusers of power
But that common experience and understanding does not justify the risks and victimization
Edit: nope
That said, I found this part interesting.
Because, I've gotten the impression from various biographies and other such stuff I've read that colleges back then were less corporatized(?) than they are now. Like there was a level of informality that I just can't fathom given the scale of the administration at colleges now.
Yeah, I think that's a whole lot of rose-colored opportunistic bullshit. There's always been school administration that wondered, "What have you done for us lately" especially when it came to research and securing grants to fund them. Which requires there to be a certain kind of professionalism in order to get said research published, recognized, and above all else, paid. Maybe it's less done elsewhere, but in the US, tenure came from the need of schools to keep their teachers from being politically hounded thanks to the numerous Red Scares. Thanks to that, there came requirements that you have to teach one subject or another for years, have expertise and recognition in your field, and so on and so forth. All of which point to the concept of "professionalism".
That side of the editorial is doing a post-hoc exercise on why they felt it was okay to take advantage of students through attempting to say they were never in a position of power over them. That their professorship was more like an internship. That everyone was equal so it was okay to have sex with them. When it was certainly not equal and giving the any kind of recognition would be extremely perilous since that means he done a bad thing and he's a good guy!
Back in the 60’s to probably the 80’s changing institutions to escape a predator was a much less daunting prospect
MWO: Adamski
I mean to a small degree, but even then for a grad student pursuing a PhD it still could represent years of lost time and if they really went scorched earth a blow your academic career would never recover from.
And a lot of those fields were small enough, networked enough, and limited enough in spots - especially for women - that an advisor or faculty member could make changing institutions difficult if not impossible with just a few words to the right people with no recourse for the student.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Or just...people not in the exact same lab as you? Or at least not your subordinates?
The whole power harrassment thing is a big issue, but another more common big issue is that there's no time when you're at the bottom rung of academia for anything other than the lab, the book, the manuscript.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
The moment a student uses violence they're open to administrative/district consequences.
Is this ever discussed? Oh, no.
Why is this never discussed? Because every reasonable person would immediately recognize it as bullshit, but because it's the current system in place, everyone seemingly avoids discussion of it.
Unless you're my social studies teacher in high school who instructed his students, "The moment you are being attacked, you're likely to be suspended, so, you may as well start throwing fists regardless."
For context, I spent almost all my K-12 education in Germany. But now I have my children entering American kindergarten and I am trying to understanding all the little cultural nuances and social norms that are just sort of understood by everyone involved because they themselves went through the system. The presentations from the superintendent etc I have gone to seem to devote quite a bit of time to discipline issues and fights in schools. There are a lot of murmurs of agreement in the parent audience. So I guess fighting is a thing in American K-12, or at least in my school district? I want to gain an understanding of the situation I'm sending my kids into.
A lot of schools districts are lazy or the parents of bullies are irritating and annoying or rich, so they just institute zero-tolerance policies so everyone gets in trouble so they don't actually have to make a decision or determination.
If your kid uses any amount of violence, even in self-defense, they will be sent home.
That is, in my experience as an educator, the blanket policy for public schools.
That's generally a non-negotiable. Where the discussion goes from there is how long a suspension lasts based on the type of violence used.
American adults have the right to shoot and kill anyone who looks at them funny.
American children have no rights.
EDIT: I wasn't able to find anything in the elementary school parent handbook. But I did find a policy in the district-wide handbook. Should have known there was another handbook! This is in the serious misconduct (level II) section.
I gotta say, this doesn't sit well with me. If you are attacked you are supposed to "block" and "shield". Sounds like a recipe for being essentially a defenseless victim.
It absolutely fucking is, and these policies teach kids that you're not allowed to fight back to protect yourself, which has long term deleterious consequences. Furthermore, these policies are often put in place because schools turn a blind eye to abuse. It's a shitshow, to put it mildly, and I'm glad my parents made sure to let me know that defending myself would always be acceptable in their eyes.
The sad part is that the answer is "it depends." That said, these sorts of incidents aren't one off incidents but tend to be the culmination of a history of abuse that the school turned a blind eye to - and if the family has documentation of that, they can make the principal's life miserable.
This is correct.
In practice back in the day if a kid started shit and the guy being picked on clocked the instigator, the teacher may well have said "yeah I saw the whole thing, you fell down with your hands in your pockets and landed on your nose." The "you little shit" may or may not have been left implied depending on the general give-a-fuckness of the teacher.
There's a lot more cameras around these days so I doubt that flies the way it used to, but
(Shout-out to Mr Suchman, you were a real one)
(sighs in bullied child who suffered from undiagnosed at the time depression)
You would be surprised how many teachers view divergence from what is considered the "norm" to be justification for peer abuse.
I've told my daughter that. Basically "if someone is bullying you, walk away. If they get physical, try and get away. But if you can't get away, fight back and end it. You will never be in trouble with me if you do.
So far it's only resulted in her verbally shutting down a kid three grades above her on the bus. She's always been really tall so she tends to look out for her friends. But sure knows that I'm always back her up as long as she wasn't the aggressor.
Yes, because most parents aren't going to pay for a lawyer over a couple days suspension. And IANAL but in general as long as there is a written policy that is followed, and no not too much underlying discrimination, courts will let schools 'govern' themselves.
Like unless you get arrested or join the military the US school system is the most authoritarian thing most people will ever interact with. Take something like afterschool or weekend detention. Basically mini-prison sentences based of some teacher/administrators whim. Bathroom passes? Yeah I've never worked somewhere I needed to ask to take a piss. Bunch of states require drug screening of student-athletes-not for PEDs but for weed etc. Uniforms and dress codes. My HS school we weren't allowed to drink anything but water or eat anything in class. Some teachers were cool(those who had HS aged boys who never stopped eating, or their own caffeine addictions), some were petty tyrants.
I think my favorite bit is whenever admin somewhere try to implement campus cellphone bans, and the parents invariably lose their shit on the admin because they are so used to being able to get a hold of their kids whenever.
You tell your child to try to find a safe way out of the confrontation, and if they can't, they defend themselves with physical force. "A two day suspension is going to be better than a broken arm."
Which you, their parent, are allowed to do. I as a professional educator can't do that, as it opens me up to a whole slew of legal issues.
Nah, you can ask. You can also bring it up at a school board meeting (where it can actually be worked on).
Oh, it's pure bullshit. It's designed entirely to offer an across-the-line disciplinary action for all fights so that admin don't have to dispense non-uniform consequences to all involved parties (which may open the school up to legal retaliation).
How sue happy is Germany?
Cause, uh...
I can't alter the district rules within the realm of my classroom and I certainly won't put my career at risk to tell a child something you are absolutely free to do over dinner.