Model Student, Sports Star Suspended for Paring Knife Mix-Up (Updated: School Press Statement Added)
(See updates at end of article. For the very latest on this story, go here.)
On its face, this looks like it’s an asinine decision which is probably the product of a culture that makes lawsuits possible in every breath we take. How else to explain what the school principal has done here? It’s either the school’s fear of a lawsuit, or a total lack of common sense among the school’s leadership, or there’s something we don’t know about all this that hasn’t shown up in the media reports. I’m not discounting that third possibility, but based on what we know from media reports, this is indefensible:
An athletic and academic standout in Lee County said a lunchbox mix-up has cut short her senior year of high school and might hurt her college opportunities.
Ashley Smithwick, 17, of Sanford, was suspended from Southern Lee High School in October after school personnel found a small paring knife in her lunchbox.
Smithwick said personnel found the knife while searching the belongings of several students, possibly looking for drugs.
“She got pulled into it. She doesn’t have to be a bad person to be searched,” Smithwick’s father, Joe Smithwick, said.
The lunchbox really belonged to Joe Smithwick, who packs a paring knife to slice his apple. He and his daughter have matching lunchboxes.
“It’s just an honest mistake. That was supposed to be my lunch because it was a whole apple,” he said.
It is nice info. Still think Perhaps President Obama can call up the school to ask for a second chance…?
What do ya wanna bet that the principal is a LIB DEM OBAMABOT who promotes his PC CRAP!!???
Perhaps Eric Holder can intervene and send the student on a Hajj to Mecca.
If in fact the student was punished for merely having the paring knife in her lunch box, then I fear for the Republic. One might expect such lunacy in NY or CA, but this school is in a mostly rural part of North Carolina. Historically the area might have boted heavily Democrat, yet it was always possessed of common sense. If the soul numbing zero tolerance demanded by political correctness has infected the body politic as deeply as rural NC, then the rot is beyond repair.
These are “educators”. Why would anyone think common sense would be in play?
That’s right, Bill, it’s not the lunch, at all: clearly seen, rather, there is there—in Sanford, North Carolina—and, as increasingly frequently may be seen elsewhere in the nation—a mindless or purposeful administrative vector in actualization for arbitrary or malicious effect—and in this way:
Infrequently, some one will hold for example that kind of woman who—upon seeing another woman to have broken a heel or the like in public situation—will entertain quiet or it may be, not so quiet, glee. And, as in this article in description, “School principal Bonnie Almond” is just that kind of woman, but worse; for, Bonnie doesn’t see and laugh from the other side of a room as it were, no, . . . but from the conditions and elements which have come to her hand, then, by interposition of her own mind, Bonnie, herself, produces the desired effect.
However, as often occurs in most any such contest between reason and unreasonableness, between decency and indecency, between evil attack and noble defense, this instance is Providential: These kinds of things come together, for the purpose inherent to such surprising and potentially injurious occurrences, specifically, for the honor due unto those who will work for community improvement.
And herefrom, in court, Bonnie’s abuse of the discretionary use of administrative process should be pointed up—hopefully, to end in rejection of her person and place in office.
Thanks for your in-depth analysis. The clarity you’ve brought to this issue is amazing.
Sanford is not all that rural actually.
And it is within a one hour’s drive to some major universitage.
Just sayin.
I have been to Sanford, NC and found it to be a delightful place. It would not, however, appear to have the Big City College type atmosphere of neighboring Raleigh, Asheboro or Fayettville. It struck me as the type of place where a senior high student would be expected to have a pickup truck with a gun rack and perhaps a Bowie knife in his/her boot in case one needs to skin a small mammal or release one from a trap. Nevertheless, this action by the School Nazis goes way beyond what is needed or is rational. If these are the people charges with educating our youth, we may as well sell out to the Chinese now while we can get a good price.
And I do think that when our President returns from his vacation all tanned and refreshed, his should have Ms. Ashley and her principal come by for a beer and resolve this issue.
Sanford is not the same as Raleigh (NCSU), in which I live, or Durham (Duke), in which I formerly lived. It sure as heck isn’t Chapel Hill (UNC).
It has been apparent for some time that the public school system is so broken that it is an active danger to the unfortunate children abandoned to its’ ministrations. If they are not assaulted by other children, they will be abused by adults.
There was a time when the public schools were actually pretty good, because they took advantage of the dearth of career opportunities for intelligent women to hire very capable people at very low wages. Even so, it is absurd to suppose that the best way to teach children how to be adults is to sequester them with other children. This system can be made to work when the level of discipline is such that they are largely confined to interacting with the few adults present. That condition is simply not present in modern American public schools, which are really just patronage vehicles for the Democrat-Union alliance.
The solution? Well, we home-school ours, but I realize not everyone is in a position to do that. I think the large-scale solution is some sort of roll-your-own, probably involving the internet. Public education is a lot like public transportation. It works OK, provided you are going where everyone else is, and aren’t in any hurry. But any fool can see it’s better to have your own.
WOW the most cogent response on here! Well written JinEugene
Local governments are a greater danger to our freedom than the federal government. Zoning commissions, planning boards, school boards, parks commissions, city councils, county commissioners – they are all so proud of themselves because they are doing it for “the children” or “for the good of the community”. They come into office with their big plans and want to “leave the world better than they found it”; and yes many of them want a “record of accomplishment” that will carry then on to higher office. They are killing our economy and our freedom. If just one of them would stand up and promise to do nothing at all, I would vote for him in a heartbeat. I would contribute my money and campaign for him.
You may be right that local tyranny is more oppressive than federal tyranny, at least in some respects. Three examples from my own life:
1. The city where I grew up recently passed a bylaw forbidding people from parking their cars anywhere on their property except on their driveways. Previously, people would occasionally park beside the driveway on their own property or even in the yard. For some reason, that became offensive to someone – don’t ask me why – and this was banned.
2. The city where I went to school passed a bylaw prohibiting cats from wandering around freely: every cat had to be walked on a leash. The cause of this law? One woman, who was angry about the neighbour’s cat peeing on her rose bushes, went to City Council and demanded that it be stopped. The council subsequently banned *all* cats anywhere in the city from roaming free forcing *all* cat owners to walk their cats with leashes or simply keep them indoors at all times.
3. The city where I live has a bylaw prohibiting residents from having more than two of any mammal, including cats, dogs, ferrets, etc. (I think it’s okay to have more than two fish but I wouldn’t swear to it.) I read the bylaw once but couldn’t find any reason for this law.
There’s something massively wrong when one or two people can be upset by something that is almost certainly none of their business in the first place and then obtain legislation that affects EVERYONE.
–
Lastly, a bit of irony. I was astonished to learn about 15 years ago that many neighbourhoods have rules prohibiting clotheslines in their yards. (This is apparently a rule enacted by the developers of these subdivisions; apparently, clotheslines are thought by some to be “trashy” and have a negative impact on property values.) But recently, environmentalists have been singing the praises of clotheslines as a better way to dry clothes than using electric dryers. I’m not sure if the laws against outdoor clotheslines have been repealed though. It will be interesting to see the clash between property developers and the global warming activists as they fight over clothesline bylaws….
The one ‘saving grace’ about what you say is that it’s a lot easier to leave a community in which the leadership has become onerous than it is to leave a country in which the leadership has done the same. Sacrificing one’s residency places far less demand on the individual citizen than would emigrating to another country.
“Previously, people would occasionally park beside the driveway on their own property or even in the yard. For some reason, that became offensive to someone – don’t ask me why – and this was banned.”
The reason is not simply the occasional lawn parking. It’s that in many neighborhoods, lower life forms move in and begin parking ANYWHERE and EVERYWHERE as a matter of everyday practice. Soon the lawns are trashed, and property values with them. These lower life forms come from sub-cultures which do not share traditional American values, and when they move in, decent people either move out or lose out.
No, this isn’t a “racist” comment. These lower life forms are as often white biker/red-neck as they are Hispanic or black.
It’s the VALUES, not the skin color or ethnic heritage, that makes the difference.
That said, it’s often sadly true that the more local the government, the more petty the tyranny.
Well, I can’t speak about anyone else’s situation but in my own case, I was parking on the grass beside the driveway on the odd occasion when I knew that parking in the driveway would be troublesome because of the need to swap cars in and out when the owner of the car at the top of the driveway had to go to work but I had parked behind him. I would have preferred to park on the street but the city banned that in our block some years ago. I had various heavy and awkward items to carry in and out so I didn’t want to park at the next available parking spot, which was some distance away.
I don’t think I was exemplifying any bad values at all but the homeowner feared getting a fine from the city, even though it was her own property. (The mortgage was paid off many years ago.) But even though it was her own property, the city forbid parking except on the driveway.
Cats should not be allowed to run loose any more than dogs, horses, goats or any other animal. These are in fact introduced alien species, like many of the other far less cute and furry examples (zebra mussels, Asian carp, kudzu, pytons etc.) The havoc and death these cute little kitties “just doing what comes naturally” do, decimating song bird populations, with or without claws is unconscionable. Personally, I think any cat out without tag/collar should be shot on sight. And those with collars should be taken to the animal pound, and euthanized unless the owner claims it and pays a $500 fine for letting it roam. And feral cat populations should be treated as alien invaders and disposed of.
And so should feral horses and burros which are not native to north America.
Yeh !! and all those feral human types too — “Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.”
Zipity, I feel the same about you and your ilk, who insist that whatever offends you be regulated out of existence.
Also, given the absence of natural predators since we’ve turned their habitat into neighborhoods, I feel the same way about the songbirds that now overpopulate my neighborhood.
I will hope for good hunting on both counts.
zipity, I just looooved your character in “Over the Hedge”.
Wonderful comment. All those unlicensed, unleashed animals are so-o-o messy and disorderly! And their owners are so trashy. Those messy animals should be K-I-L-L-E-D! For the crime of offending you. And their trashy owners should be made to pay!
You are exactly what we are talking about. This article and subsequent comments are about you! YOU are the issue! You are strident, intolerant, stiff-necked, self-righteous, sure of your own rightness in all things. And you would KILL these innocent animals to have your way. You are a petty tyrant type. If you were in greater authority, this same self-righteousness would lead you to KILL people too. They are not living beings to you. They are objects, objects which offend you. You are a KILLER at heart. Like all these petty tyrant types.
You know what is funny? I wonder if you support things like PETA? Perhaps you support the “Green” movement. Perhaps you preach compassion and tolerance. All while having none in your own heart. While believing all the while you do, that you are a good person. While being a killer at heart.
The unleashed cats offend you, so you would kill them. Without compunction. Or even consideration of it whatsoever. You are right, and that is reason enough. There is no doubt, no discussion. That is who you are. Killer. A wizened walnut for a heart.
You’ve hit the problem about liberal and Orwellian political correctness on the head. Although the Federal gov’t is more of less evenly balanced between conservatives and liberals in terms of representatives, that is not the real issue. It is the small or unelected bureaucracies throughout this nation from the immigration machinery to city councils that have wrecked this nation out of fear of litigation and fear of delicate egos.
Watch out cuz something bad might happen is the watchword that commands that reportless report cards and drying laundry must be cozened and abolished. Ironically, the very cultures that have created the zero tolerance policy are the cultures least prone to be affected by it and I am specifically speaking about the debauched value system of young black culture spurred on by lyrics that cast policemen as Nazis that should be killed and jewelry as trumping education. Some hip-hop moron gets on a mike and some innocent girl gets the boot cuz of a paring knife.
We have all read of similar stories when it comes to zero tolerance. Americans are so constricted by stupid rules, 2 inch lawns and general gov’t bureaucracy that the idea that this is a free country or that we own our homes is a joke. We own our homes only to the extant that we obey arcane rules and sit with folded hands.
no doubt the principal will cite a “no tolerance” policy………. which really means “no discretion”, “no judgment”, and “no character”….. typical of today’s school administrators.
Right ON!! You have hit a bull’s eye here. This is “education’s” attempt to deflect any and all liability. They want all control and no responsibility. Sounds like my teenager!! In fact, when my son was in 9th grade, he had a fairly serious case of mono. And anyone who has had any experience knows that the spleen is especially vulnerable with mono. So following a choir concert, as I was waiting to take him home immediately, some kid comes out of the choir and sucker punches him in the stomach right there, in front of me! He obviously did not know who I was. When I took my complaint to the principal, he said, “well we don’t assign blame, we suspend both”. Now how grown up is that??? So if I want to beat up on someone, I can do it with impunity. And if I bring my dad’s lunch to school by accident, I have no recourse. Even terrorists get treated better than that!!!
So of course, you sucker-punched the principal in the gut.
“You hit me!”
“Now, now, we don’t assign blame here.”
It really does pay to be skeptical about “bureaucracy/PC gone mad” stories. People really aren’t this bloody-minded.
To wit:
School officials deny Sanford teen’s story of suspension
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/8851902/
and
She IS apparently doing coursework online, so I suspect there’s still some information that isn’t clear. The school has pointed out that this all happened 2 months ago, and she hasn’t approached the school to appeal before going to the press.
After several years of checking claims, I’m now of the view that 80%-90% of “PC gone mad” stories from the UK are bogus (it’s their third-greatest export, after heartwarming countryside TV dramas and trashy comedy shows). I’m beginning to wonder if the same applies to the US.
She was *already* doing *college* coursework online – compleltely unreleated to her high school. suspended students *are* enrolled in the school they are suspended from – is she attending classes on the high school campus?
Take a look at the PHOTO of her “purse”. It’s a LUNCHBOX you can buy at any office products store carrying school supplies.
You smack of someone who believes whatever “officialdom” deigns to tell you.
Ah, so many lies. Where to start.
1. What the school rep calls a ‘purse’ is actually a bag (brand logo ‘BYO’ – ‘bring your own’. Get it?) advertised and sold as an alternative to carrying a brown paper lunch bag.
2. Further, the assertion that she is still enrolled is disingenuous at best. It is possible to be ‘enrolled’ and suspended at the same time. Which is the case here.
The double-speak and misdirection on display here is positively Orwellian. Your attempt to defend it is pathetic. Let’s face it Matt – you love overweening, unaccountable and arrogant authority as long as it suits your sensibilities and serves your cause. You’re like someone who has contracted a disfiguring disease but says, “Yeah, but on me, it looks good.”
Oh, and by the way – here’s the ‘purse’, Matty:
http://www.brandsmartusa.com/ProductViewer.aspx?c=0&m=0&sc=0&pg=1&pgs=10&pid=2003916&f=
Game, set and match.
Nice move Ward…
Glad there are tec savy people here that can quickly de-bunk the trolls with links and such…..
I’m an old geezer that may know alot, but I cant “make it happen” with this darn blinking lights on glass interface fast enough to foil the trolls efficiently.
But if you ever need real live fire support, I’m your man!
Matthew, you clearly did not read the article (or maybe you read the first page and didn’t click on the “2″)? Everything you just posted is addressed and debunked.
I hope people don’t actually pay you for “checking claims” if you can’t even read an entire article before posting a response like that.
That second page was written after my post. The last time I was sitting at the keyboard (last night), this was a one-page article.
The “update” part should be a hint
The fact that your snark was wrong to begin with should be an even bigger hint. Not that you’ll get it. As you evidently have not.
Oh, for crying out loud. Try to keep this in mind: You Do Not Know What Happened.
I would guess that the girl is going to be reinstated at friday’s meeting, simply because of the media coverage. I’m not saying she should have been suspended. ALL I am saying is that the original story did not contain important information – i.e. the school’s side of the story, which contradicts the earlier story in some pretty important ways. You’re buying one side of the story without question, and completely dismissing anything that contradicts your preferred conclusion. For example: who here actually knows if the knife was found in that bag? Anyone? It might have been. Or it might have been found in an actual purse, just like the school claimed.
There are a few people who can always be relied on for a good kicking in the media – cops, teachers, politicians, judges, builders (feel free to add others). Certain sorts of people (i.e. you) are completely unquestioning when people from any of those groups are attacked, so they’re safe cannon fodder. You’ll happily swallow a story which assumes that they’re corrupt, mad or evil without bothering to even look for contradicting evidence. And, apparently, if anyone points out the other side of the story you’ll turn on them. Interesting.
Something the second story points out is that there ISN’T a blanket “zero tolerance” policy. The schools can apply discretion – that has been made very clear by the board. Given the girl’s story, I also think it’s very odd that anybody would kick her off campus for most of a year. If she really is a model student (and even if she isn’t) there would have been people in her corner questioning that decision, and teachers are a pretty ornery bunch.
I agree that it’s an extreme response – but I don’t know what sort of problems the district has had with knife crime. Oh, and I don’t know the whole story.
My point was that none of us has the full story. So save the crowing for when you do. And consider the possibility that the super’s fairly unequivocal response to the allegations might actually be honest. It’s going to be a very big black mark if it isn’t, and he’s not even the one in the frame for making the original decision. Why would he shoot himself in the foot? Is he mad? Corrupt? Maybe he’s evil?
I know, I know, I’m part of the vast leftist conspiracy. Sure. I probably kick puppies, too.
Rules of Whatever…
Remember, don’t comment until you have “the full story”. Never draw a conclusion until the approved moment. This exists in some unknowable realm that no person can enter. You’re shoes really aren’t tied, you just think so.
Matthew
“My point was that none of us has the full story.”
“Oh, for crying out loud. Try to keep this in mind: You Do Not Know What Happened.”
“For example: who here actually knows if the knife was found in that bag? Anyone? It might have been. Or it might have been found in an actual purse, just like the school claimed.”
“My point was that none of us has the full story.”
December 30, 2010 – 8:22 pm
“I know, I know, I’m part of the vast leftist conspiracy. Sure. I probably kick puppies, too.
No, not really. You’re just a person with a convenient explanation for “relative” truth.
Matt, you wouldn’t kick puppies — they have fangs and might bite you in the *ss and rip out your throat.
Did that spanking hurt, Matt?
SOme advice to any HS student that is taking “college” courses while in HS: Go to the admissions and take the ability to benifit test enroll in the school and complete the required course of study and get your GED before your class even graduates. My daughter-in law did the college courses in HS and not a single one was excepted EVEN AT THE COLLEGE THAT ADMINISTERED THE COURSES! My daughter took the test and started at 16 got her AS at 18 and just graduated with a BFA at 20. HS school is already a waste of time after 16, this kind of in tolerant crap just makes it worse
That’s the idea. When I was 17, I had already taken all the Math courses my so-called High School offered. They said they could arrange for me to take courses at the local college for HS credit. I had a better idea. I got my GED, and started taking courses at the local college for college credit.
That’s absolutely right! The only thing a HS diploma means is that you were so dumb you sat there taking crap and wasting your time. I still get angry with myself over being that dumb.
Hhhmmm, I don’t know that I’d advise getting a GED in place of a diploma. They can mean the same thing, but not necessarily. For some employers and the military, GED means ‘loser.’
Message to Darla Cole and Jeff Moss. Ignorance is correctable, stupid is bone deep and forever. Have either of you learned from this? Your zero tolerance is a stupid policy, the knife is not baaaaad! It was to be used as a tool not a weapon. I think this is just one reason why public schools are failing and you Jeff Moss are also get an F in this test of your ability to think.
This is all part of the agenda to turn us all in to servile sheep. Its called conditioning.
Sure the school has a different story, but I have no reason to believe ether party, and do have reason to disbelieve what the school system is trying to get us to believe by implication.
What I want to know is, was the student disciplined in any way for merely having the knife on or about them, absent any evidence she posed a threat? If so, I don’t give a damn if there are discrepancies between the two sides–the school system is in the wrong.
Also, I note the school system does not say she is welcome on campus, and they do not dispute the knife was intended for the father’s lunch.
The idea that rules are rules and should be respected is only valid when the rules are not evilly stupid, as zero tolerance policies are.
“Sure the school has a different story, but I have no reason to believe ether party”
But you seem to assume the girl’s story is the default position, and the school has to prove otherwise.
“and do have reason to disbelieve what the school system is trying to get us to believe by implication.”
That they upheld their own rules? Or that the girl was packing a shiv? Why do you have reason to disbelieve either? Do you know her?
I don’t know which story is true either. But there IS now doubt about the version that was first reported. We will eventually know what happened – it might take a few days, though. Speaking from experience, if a story requires they you believe without evidence that respectable people have become mad, corrupt or evil then it’s deserves a critical review. Highly visible public employees are easy targets, and they have to follow rules or they can find themselves in a lonely place very quickly. Now and then one will actually screw up, that does happen. But to believe this girl’s story means that we have to assume that an entire school’s administration has become vindictive toward ONE student. Sure, the decision was made from the top, but if it really was out of order it would have come to light a bit quicker than two months later – too many people would have known about it. If she really is a great student, then at the very least SOME teachers would have her back.
But you seem to assume the girl’s story is the default position, and the school has to prove otherwise.
Since she’s been charged with a misdemeanor, afaic the burden of proof indeed is on the school.
Without necessarily believing her, I grant her the presumption of innocence, i.e. the benefit of the doubt.
But you seem to assume the girl’s story is the default position, and the school has to prove otherwise.
“But you seem to assume the girl’s story is the default position, and the school has to prove otherwise.
”
Of course: ‘Innocent until proved guilty!’
Or are will already under sharia: ‘Innocent until proved Kufir?’
To a trained fighter ANYTHING is a weapon – keys, hot coffee, shoe laces – where do we stop?
“But you seem to assume the girl’s story is the default position, and the school has to prove otherwise.”
On the contrary, my objections depend only on the existence of necessarily assinine “zero tolerance” policies. I am not assuming any party involved, the girl, the school, or the journalists are being perfectly accurate or honest.
“That they upheld their own rules? Or that the girl was packing a shiv? Why do you have reason to disbelieve either? Do you know her?”
Are their rules sensible? NO. A paring knife for the purpose of cutting apples is no shiv. I specifically said I disbelieved neither, and my objections were founded on what the school did not say and what it merely implied. I don’t know anyone involved, I do know “zero tolerance” policies cannot be fairly or justly enforced, they are not fair, just, or even vaguely reasonable.
“But there IS now doubt about the version that was first reported.”
There is doubt about the version as second reported.
“Speaking from experience, if a story requires they you believe without evidence that respectable people have become mad, corrupt or evil then it’s deserves a critical review.”
All things being equal, that is correct. But all things aren’t equal, one side is upholding a “zero tolerance” policy and is asserting a crime has occurred. That party deserves the scrutiny and skepticism.
“they have to follow rules or they can find themselves in a lonely place very quickly”
Following rules such as this, they should be laughed at walking down the street.
“But to believe this girl’s story means that we have to assume that an entire school’s administration has become vindictive toward ONE student.”
No. It only means we must assume the school administration has become as a policy vindictive toward ALL students who for whatever innocent purpose or incidental accident bring a verboten thing to the school.
OH! Guess what! That’s what a “zero tolerance” policy is! They proudly convict themselves of mindless vindictiveness, exactly as you describe.
“Sure, the decision was made from the top, but if it really was out of order it would have come to light a bit quicker than two months later – too many people would have known about it. If she really is a great student, then at the very least SOME teachers would have her back.”
More assumptions on your part without evidence.
To justify what they have done, they must show the student had ill intent and malice aforethought. If they can’t do it, they are asses.
“to believe this girl’s story means that we have to assume that an entire school’s administration has become vindictive toward ONE student”
No, we dont have to assume there is a personal conspiracy against her. So what if 99.9% of the teachers and custodians DONT want her punished, they dont decide, do they? Stop trying to provide cover for the inexcuseable.
Its not just one student…its US verses THEM…thats the schools (read: governments) mentality whenever there is a “non-compliance” to their “system”…we are not individuals, we are not people they “know” and and can make reasonable judgements about, we are simply “non-compliant” of their power structure, and will therefore be destroyed.
The fact they lock step march their “unstoppable administration” machine over the bodies of whoever is in their path, IS WHAT THEY DO.
Only by degrees are totalitarians different…the mindset is the same.
Individuals do not exist to a Regime.
Matthew, you still haven’t read the article. The only doubt thrown after reading the article (which very adeptly debunks Moss’s statement) is on the school.
There are two pages to the article, Matthew. Please read the second page that you seem to have missed.
That second page was written after my post. The last time I was sitting at the keyboard (last night), this was a one-page article. Hence the “update”.
I’ll check it now.
matthew,
lets be a little more careful with our terminology, a “shiv” is criminal slang for a “home made” contrabrand prison knife. what the young lady had in her lunch tote was a commom small kitchen knife, not much of a “weapon”. my gerber fighting knife and marine corps “kabar”, both with 7 inch blades are weapons, (and quite legal where i live, whether you like it or not, as also is my old service .45.) the issue here is arrogant brass bound bureaucratic stupidity, of which i hear you have in plentiful supply in dear old blighty. we rude colonials still hold our officials accountable to us, and we will call them down at our pleasure. they serve us, not we them. i suggest you try reading rudyard kipling’s “the old issue” though i understand he is somewhat out of fashion in england these days.
So in this school, students paring fruit get a suspension? Why do I get the feeling that students stealing from other students get a counsellor to boost the thieves’ self esteem?
A paring knife is only a weapon if carried by some twisted mean SOB. Does the school principal regard all his students as twisted mean SOBs?
As presented by Mr Preston, a sad pathetic story
The scariest thing is that people trust such idiots to ‘educate’ thier children.
Actually, I don’t know many who “trust” them to educate, it’s simply mandated by law. The zero tolerance thing is to show their being tough on troublemakers. All it does is show that without common sense they’re just being stupid. Which is why I guess we’ve had the dumbing down process going on for years in this country.
I homeschool because of idiots like this – they tend to overpower any good in the system.
I should add – that was after having children go through the system, and dealing with this type of garbage first hand. I pulled the last one to be enrolled out, and have no plans to enroll my youngest – ever.
Suburban Kansas City, Sept., 2010: a fifth grade girl, an A student, student council member, and girl scout was suspended from school for 3 months after she and other children were found to have brought an Airsoft pistol, which shoots plastic BBs, onto the school playground – on a Sunday. The toy gun violated the district’s weapons policy.
Jeffersonville, Indiana, Mar., 2010: 7th grade girl suspended for one week after touching a prescription ADHD pill given to her by another student. She refused the pill and returned it to the other student, but was found in violation of the school’s ‘zero tolerance’ drug policy.
NEWARK, Del., Oct., 2009: six y.o. Zachary was excited to bring his brand new Cub Scout multi-function utensil to class and show it off to his buds. The utensil has a folding spoon, fork and a knife. It was the last item which bunched the panties of school officials. Zachary was suspended for 45 days. He violated the district’s weapons policy.
I have zero tolerance for zero tolerance.
That type of thinking is the cognitive dissonance which pervades progressive halls of gub’mint schools. These are the same institutions which embrace libertine attitudes about sexuality, promote perverse conversations about patriotism, and encourage minds so open that everything spills out into a puddles on the school’s parking lot, yet refuse to evaluate character, judge motives, or utilize common sense.
And is it any wonder? “Zero tolerance” is a second cousin to the loathsome “social justice”, where equality of outcome is paramount, value judgments are intolerable, and discriminating thought is bigotry.
The lawyers have won, and your tax dollars paid for it.
Zero tolerance, and its malevolent cousin mandatory minimum sentencing from the judicial system are the province of intellectual and moral cowards – people who are afraid that their decisions or judgments will be challenged and they will be called upon to defend them.
Both those policies scream loudly for all who care to listen “we don’t trust the people we hire to render appropriate decisions, so we’re going to pre-decide all cases for them.” Both zero tolerance and mandatory minimum sentencing presume that:
a)there can be no mitigating or extenuating circumstances which matter in any given case and
b)that all people found to be on the wrong side of the law are equally odious and should be punished with equal venom.
“Zero tolerance, and its malevolent cousin mandatory minimum sentencing from the judicial system are the province of intellectual and moral cowards …”
Excellent post, Sir.
Both instances involve attempts by government to regulate discretion. But the motivations – and the needs – are different, I think.
In the case of the schools, zero tolerance is simply an abandonment of discretion. The rules exist to protect the administrators.
In the case of minimum sentencing, the objective is to corral judges who abuse their discretion. (Today in Chicago, the papers are reporting a case where a man who was convicted of second degree murder got probation. In essence, the judge over-ruled the jury, and reduced the verdict to involunary manslaughter. A verdict of murder in any degree should lead to jail time.)
In both cases, reduction of discretion is involved, but in the case of the courts, the people involved have been found guilty, and deserve punishment, while in the case of the schools, the innocent and the guilty are punished alike.
Punishing a criminal at a minimum mandatory level might be unwise, but it is not unjust. These zero tolerance policies are both unwise and inherently unjust. The only reason they are in place is that the public has lost control of the schools to the administrators.
“In the case of the schools, zero tolerance is simply an abandonment of discretion. The rules exist to protect the administrators.”
Well, that’s one reason ZT rules exist. They can also be instituted as an over-zealous people management policy; they also can, and often do, result as an over-reaction to a single contentious circumstance; they also can be imposed upon schools by state legislatures and state bureaucratic agencies.
“In the case of minimum sentencing, the objective is to corral judges who abuse their discretion.”
I heartily concur, and I would add that MMS’s also have the effect of changing the dynamics of the plea-bargain system as well as providing an iota of leverage on over-reaching and grand-standing defence attorneys.
“In both cases, reduction of discretion is involved, but in the case of the courts, the people involved have been found guilty, and deserve punishment, while in the case of the schools, the innocent and the guilty are punished alike.”
I can’t agree here. Take the instant case as an example – young Ms. Smithwick was indeed guilty of violating the ban on weapons on school grounds. She’s never been innocent of the “charges”. She has voluntarily acknowledged her guilt. What’s missing is the connection between her punishment and the circumstances/motivations of the matter. In other words, due to the ZT policy eliminating discretion, the punishment doesn’t (and can’t) fit the crime.
“Punishing a criminal at a minimum mandatory level might be unwise, but it is not unjust.”
Here’s another point on which I can’t fully agree. I’d agree that punishing a criminal at a minimum mandatory level is OFTEN or SOMETIMES unwise, but I’d also say that it MAY or MAY NOT be unjust. Some people sentenced under MMS’s deserve the punishment they receive and more. I have no issue about them. But for others, the MMS represents an undue burden which doesn’t fit the particulars of their case.
I’ll cite a case with which I’m fairly familiar. While serving jury duty a few years ago, I was empaneled on a case in which the defendant was a 40-ish year-old man who’d been stopped for speeding. A subsequent search of his vehicle, turned up a couple of stub-ends of joints in his ashtray. A field sobriety swab test and subsequent blood test confirmed that he was not intoxicated at the time of the arrest. He acknowledged possessing the cannabis and co-operated with the police throughout the arrest. He had no priors of any sort and was gainfully employed.
In most circumstances, he’d have been handed a suspended sentence, fined, sent to drugs counseling and probably put on community service. But, he’d been pulled over on a stretch of road which ran between the grounds of two schools and the state had a law imposing mandatory minimum sentence for all drug crimes which occurred within a 500-yard radius of a school. It mattered not that the arrest took place at the far edge of the 500 yard perimeters of both the schools. It mattered not that the road is a heavily traveled thoroughfare and is the only connection between two disparate parts of the town. It mattered not that he had a clean record. It mattered not that the amount of cannabis was small. He ended up sentenced to seven years in the state prison because of where he’d been caught.
However you feel about cannabis possession, and I don’t favour legalisation or use at all myself, that punishment was completely unjust and harsh. Especially when the average first-degree murder convictee in the same state gets about the same sentence and is often paroled before completing it. But since this fellow was on a MMS, he had to serve the whole sentence.
The punishment really didn’t fit the facts of the crime. But there was a DA running for re-election and he had his ADA go for the juglar. And the MMS provided the bite.
I can’t agree, there is no crime at all in this case, mens rea it utterly absent.
Here is the real reason this happens: RACE.
Yes RACE!
Black and Hispanic students are suspended and expelled at MUCH MUCH MUCH higher rates than White and Asian kids. For serious things like assault, robbery, guns on campus, hard drugs, and so on.
This creates a huge racial disparity. And the ever-present threat of lawsuits by the ACLU, Urban League, NAACP, the Justice Department, and others. Lawsuits they’d win!
UNLESS …. White kids are suspended and expelled.
Lets get real. Zero tolerance is just another way to “punish” random White kids so school districts don’t get sued for suspending gang members, drug dealers, robbers, boys doing assaults, etc. who will be almost exclusively Black or Hispanic.
Incentives matter. They drive human behavior. Don’t like Zero Tolerance? Well, White kids will CONTINUE to be punished randomly as long as the current Civil Rights legal framework (protected classes, consent decrees, racial tiers of rights and privileges, etc.) exists. There is so much invested in this framework that it is very unlikely to be overturned any time in the next 100 years.
So, for the foreseeable future, White kids will be randomly punished to maintain racial parity in expulsions and suspensions with Black and Latino kids. Period.
Whiskey, please take your racist idiocy somewhere else. The zero tolerance policies have nothing to do with disparate expulsion rates among races in schools, it is a stupid over-reaction to the Columbine type school shootings; which are usually done by–wait for it–whites.
It’s not that educators are trying to equalize the rates by race. Rather, it’s that educators have a defense against accusations of racism if they never exercise any personal discretion and instead mechanically applied a mandatory policy. If the principal allowed himself to use common sense, then rabble-rousers would accuse him of using his judgement to pick on minorities.
All of which might be incidentally true, but there is no evidence the zero tolerance policies came about with that as a designed outcome–they were a reaction to the school shootings by, as it happens, white students.
More black kids get shot on their way to, in front of, and on school grounds than Columbine…sad truth is we “expect” that in “their” neighborhoods…
Only when WHITE kids kill or GET KILLED in schools, is anything done about it, and its usually something stupid and useless, like “zero tolerance”
BTW, can anyone rationally explain why Kleibold and Harris were allowed to roam the school shooting kids for almost AN HOUR, without some ARMED OFFICERS rushing in to engage them (instead sitting outside, “evaluating” the situation, protected by BODY ARMOR and HARDENED SWAT VEHICLES).
Situational paralysis, inability to use judgement, fear of decisive decision making….What else is new?
Zero tolerance was sold to us teachers as a way to prevent us from being accused of racism. If you treat a white kid A Student who has a butter knife in her lunch box, the same as you treat a disruptive black kid with a straight razor in his shoe, (this happened in my school) you can’t be accused of racism. If you don’t treat them both equally, the black community will raise hell. I promise you it is because of race.
Retired middle school teacher
“it is a stupid over-reaction to the Columbine type school shootings; which are usually done by–wait for it–whites.”
Not too many Columbines happening where I live but alot of weapons related incidents : stabbings, shootings, on site gun possessions etc near or in inner city schools. I think it might be a stupid over reaction to Columbine, but that one sensational incident doesn’t negate the fact that urban schools are a big problem, and there seems to be a common denominator in many of the overwhelming numbers of urban school related incidents.
But what do I know, I was just an alternate that missed the cut.
No, Whiskey might have a point. Overly PC administrators, looking at the case and the girl, may have decided that letting her go over this one could lead to accusations of racial favoritism. I wonder what the races of the children in other zero-tolerance-run-amuck are. If they are all white/Asian, or disproportionately white/Asian, then perhaps we should all question it.
You need look no further than the reaction in Durham, NC to understand.
1) Three white Duke lacrosse team members were falsely accused of rape by stripper Crystal Mangum a black woman and Durham resident. Well before the facts were in, the three were pilloried by their own faculty and summarily suspended by Duke’s President Dick Brodhead (never mind the media).
2) Shortly afterwards a white Duke freshman was actually raped by Durham resident Jermaine Burch. Total silence on the part of everyone who had been shooting their mouths off with respect to #1.
Don’t try to convince anyone that race doesn’t matter in these cases. It always matters.
When my daughter was in middle school, that’s jr. high to you old people, she and three of her fellow classmates were singing “Three Blind Mice” during lunch one day and as they went along they started to make up verses. One was instead of “She cut of their tails with a carving knife”, they put it so it was about their least favorite teacher and sang “We put out her eyes with a carving knife”. You guessed it! They were hauled into the principle’s office and were going to be charged with threatening a teacher with violence. The charge was dropped after the three families went ballistic and they were given in school suspension for a week. There is no common sense or adults in the US school system any longer. These things may be funny when they are read by people but when they are about your child they are not funny.
Precisely….
Why wouldnt someone just TALK to them about their behavior?
Tell them its innapropriate, tell them it COULD be misinterpreted to mean a threat, tell them its hurtful to the person they sang the sond about, and tell them to appologise.
THAT would be leadership, responsible mentoring, involved, observant, smart, effective…everything schools and teachers USED to be before the Unions were hijacked by the career leftists
Instead, the students received a punishment which they (correctly) believe to be out of scale to the act and probably get support for that feeling from both friends and adults whom they respect (since it is, after all, true). The end result is that the only lesson learned is FURTHER lack of respect for administration and other adults in positions of power. Young people (especially at the High School level) have a highly honed sense of what is FAIR and these zero tolerance policies are inherently and obviously unfair. Is there any wonder they don’t respect authority?
Zero tolerance is an intolerable policy. To combat it, I favor barrels of hot tar, goose down feathers and one way tickets to Californicate or Illnoise, their choice.
If she gets off they’ll have to apologize to every kid who was unfairly punished for similar “crimes”.
You say that like it’s a downside.
It think they should.
On their knees.
carter: If she gets off they’ll have to apologize to every kid who was unfairly punished for similar “crimes”.
Tom Perkins:You say that like it’s a downside.
It think they should.
On their knees.
Agreed. And it should be put on YouTube, for that matter.
Public schools lost their way when administrators were no longer required to teach. They have become more and more insulated in their proverbial ivory tower as times goes on, losing all touch with reality in the process.
If I ran a school system, every administrator, from the vice principal up to the superintendent, would be required to teach one class per day in addition to whatever else it is that they do. (School board members would also be required to substitute for one week per year, with a credentialed teacher in the room if the board member was not so qualified.) And the rest of the bureaucracy would be dramatically pared down; you can’t tell me the Deputy Associate Vice Superintendent for Curriculum Development in the Northwest Quadrant is necessary; you just can’t.
Oh but they can, and they DO!
My son’s elementary school has, at the second grade level, a teacher, an ASSISTANT teacher, a READING teacher, a LANGUAGE specialist and a LITERACY specialist, each earns roughly $93,000 base pay, before bennies, “steps” and “seniority”… so count on spending at least a cool 3/4 mil to get 180 days of classroom instruction.
I dont DARE try to do the hourly costs, I might vomit blood and DIE if I saw the number
Liberal Facists!
And then “they” wonder why our kids are not going to college. There is this mentality today that all children must be treated the same in our schools…the straight A student who never misses a day of school must NEVER be treated any different than the crack head that shows up for class once a month…after all we wouldn’t want the crack head to feel badly about himself and the straight A student must learn that hard work and ambition is not to be rewarded
Interesting – if (as Matthew states) this story is two months old, and the knife (3 inches can actually do damage, provided the person wielding it has a clue as to what she is doing) was found in the young woman’s purse, this is a different story. Not necessarily a better one, however; I walked around with a six-inch knife in my bag for months, having forgotten it after a hiking trip. Certainly, any one who searched my backpack in that period would have assumed many, many bad things on that basis.
However, I will assume the story is as originally related, since we have a parent willing to speak up.
No one in his right mind thinks this is right. So something got miserably sideways, and I’d like to know where the regulations came from. It takes very little to cause school authorities to lose their minds and pass “zero tolerance” rules after an incident.
The young woman should petition for a GED test if she is within six months of graduation. It would save her a whole lot of grief.
“No one in his right mind thinks this is right”
But we’re not dealing with “right” minds, these are PUBLIC SCHOOL ADMINISTARTORS, we are most likely dealing with “left” minded folks…
They always get it wrong, and we suffer for it
go back and look at the photo of her “purse”. It’s a lunchbox, made of a soft fabric that has handles. You can buy them in office supply stores. (not a store that carries “purses”.)
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, don’t tell me it’s a cat.
Go back and look at the father. Does he look like the type of man to carry a “purse-like” lunch bag?
And who carries a knife with their lunch to carve an apple. He can’t bite into it like everyone else?
To address your questions: even the most masculine men do goofy things to make their daughters happy. If she thought it would be cool to have a lunch bag that matched Daddy’s, of COURSE he would do it, and take every bit of ribbing he got with a smile.
And in the South, it’s not uncommon to peel and core your apple before eating it. I used to put salt on them too. If you peel it too early, though, it turns brown – so you take a knife with you to do the job.
I see no reason to disbelieve their story. In fact, with the facts as presented, it is the most logical explanation.
A lot of people do, lefty. Some folks don’t like the skin, so they peel it off. Need a knife for that. Some like it in slices, but the slices get brown if you cut it well before lunch time. Need a knife.
Why do you insist that this girl be guilty when it clearly looks like a case of zero tolerance run amok? What is it about this girl that your leftist dogma demands she be found guilty (against convincing evidence) and forced to pay a high price?
Nice try, but nobody’s buying what you’re selling. Don’t you have a Five Minute Hate to attend somewhere?
I suppose grown men need to justify to you why they carry a knife. I carry two. One Swiss Army knife because it’s handy for a wide variety of tasks. The other because it’s really sharp.
Why should the young lady settle for a GED?
That would prove (I suppose) that she was competent at the minimally-functioning level required by our high schools currently.
I assume that, if she’s concurrently enrolled in college courses (I take it that only means, community-college level, though), she’s capable of more advanced work, and wants her high school record to reflect this.
Maybe she was taking Advanced Placement courses at her high school before the incident.
In any case, it’s natural that she would want this ridiculous suspension business cleared up, and a chance to continue doing the course work at the actual level at which she was previously functioning.
It’s true–all this talk of “Columbines” notwithstanding–that what public school administrators crave above all are hard-and-fast rules to apply in a given situation, precisely so they don’t have to employ any thought and judgment. It’s quite true that they are reluctant to be seen as acting as though an excellent student and athlete, never before in trouble for any reason, could be treated “differently” from a habitual troublemaker. That wouldn’t be “fair.”
This is just another example of forcing the individual to rely on institution and government for their needs, although minor example at best.
Independence frightens and concerns the organized status quo, anyone or any group that is not part of the collective is immediately suspect and subject to investigation, censure, surveillance, penalty, shunning, and whatever tool is available to the organization.
The problem isn’t carrying a Knife, it is the lack of penalty that exists when the knife is misused. If proper penalties existed and were in place, people would think long and hard before misusing a Knife and we would not be frightened of a honors student carrying a paring knife obviously used to skin fruit.
Everytime I hear “Zero Tolerance” I wish we could fire these mindless liberals. They deserve no less.
We live in sad times when a school authority leans more towards their pension than the future of a bright student. Alas, this is where we find ourselves. I wish the girl the best.
I wish the school “authorities” not being this stupid was a condition of their getting the pension.
typical behavior for public school administrators, studentent was too white, and too smart . . . . . they had to set an example! a public school education is a totally useless experience for advanced students like this young lady appears to be.
I was an Ohio Shcool Board member a decade ago when we had a similar issue. A zero tolerance policy, a report of a fight, the high school assistant principle finding a metal clip that hold a pen in the pocket that he deemed to be a weapon. He invoked the zero tolerance policy, the Superintnendent backed him and the parent appealed to the School Board. We ddid not like to undercut an administrator who was trying to do the right thing, but his punishment which was expulsion for the semester was clearly ridiculous given the circumstance of a flimsy part of pocket pen being called a weapon. The Board reduced the punishment to a few day suspension.
You can’t say the Superintendent has no role. The Principal works for the Superintendent. The Board is a final point of appeal.
These zero tolerance polices are crutches so that administrators can just flip to a policy manual instead of having to use judgement.
So this student was still punished for NOT carrying a weapon???
Or rather, the student was still punished – for causing the principal to demonstrate his/her idiocy in public. Because it would be too disruptive for the school board to actually do something about the idiot they put in charge.
We are being defrauded. We pay professional wages to administrators to exercise professional judgement, and they do not. I would suggest showing up at the next school board meeting and moving to replace the administrator with a clerk.
It’s just good business sense not to pay for what you do not get.
Its a GREAT business to be in when YOURE the one getting paid to NOT deliver!!
HA HA HA!! The Unions laugh all the way to YOUR bank account!!
We pay professional wages to administrators to exercise professional judgement, and they do not.
Frankly, I don’t think any civil servant wants anything to do with exercising professional judgement. Just look at law enforcement, as an example. Instead of laying charges of careless driving, where “careless” is a judgement call, police use radar to replace judgement: the radar, which is supposedly infallible, says the driver was exceeding the posted speed limit so they will be charged with speeding even if the driver was driving very carefully and safely. The radar will not be disputed the way the officer’s judgement might be.
By the same token, school administrators don’t want to make any judgements because those can be questioned. It’s far easier and safer for their careers if they just blindly follow a zero tolerance policy because those don’t require any thought or judgement. Therefore, they can’t make a judgement error. Making a judgement error raises the possibility that they will not be permitted to advance to their next promotion and/or raise.
I read dozens of fascinating anecdotes in a book called The Death of Common Sense written, ironically, by a lawyer named Philip K. Howard. One of the anecdotes that stuck out in my mind described a hospital administrator for the Veterans Administration who noticed the grounds of the hospital was looking shabby. He approached the head groundskeeper about this and was informed that the lawn mower was broken. The administrator purchased a new lawn mower out of his own pocket and did not seek to get the money reimbursed. A few months later, a bureaucrat from the VA audited all of their physical equipment and noticed the new lawn mower. He lodged a complaint with his superiors because the purchase of the lawn mower had not been done through official channels and the administrator was duly reprimanded.
Anyone with two brain cells to rub together would realize that the administrator had done a good thing by getting the lawn mower quickly rather than waiting for the bureaucracy to get it for him and by paying for it himself rather than making taxpayers do so yet the administrator just got into trouble for his good deed. Clearly, no one above him was able or willing to exercise their judgement to realize that.
Howard’s book is fascinating and I can’t recommend it highly enough. In fact, Howard should be a regular columnist here at PJM. (And maybe even a presidential candidate!)
The rule against privately purchasing something the government should provide is in place in order to prevent the government from making its employees buy the things the government should provide. This rule and others of its kind were put in place as part of the effort to keep government employees from pocketing the money saved by requiring their subordinates to buy the things they needed to do their jobs.
But the government didn’t force this administrator to buy the lawn mower: he did it voluntarily. (I’m having trouble finding this anecdote again in the book but I think he bought it with his own money because it would have taken a substantial amount of time before it arrived if ordered through official channels and the grounds were already visibly shabby.)
Even if there is some merit in protecting employees from being forced to buy things with their own money, surely a reasonable system would have forgiven this particular administrator under these circumstances since he was NOT pressured into buying the lawn mower.
We are being defrauded. We pay professional wages to administrators to exercise professional judgement, and they do not. I would suggest showing up at the next school board meeting and moving to replace the administrator with a clerk.
Since zero tolerance policies are enacted to prevent the use of judgment or rational thought, you wouldn’t even need to replace the superintendent with a clerk. You could replace him with a simple computer program and save tons of money.
Well, you can see why the local authorities would be going after this young woman. Given her lengthy criminal record, and the fact that she’s obviously a really dangerous desperado (soccer player…that’s definitely a threat to the public safety). I mean just look at that face. Obviously, the face of a hardened criminal. If we don’t nip her criminal career in the bud, next thing you know, she’ll be slaughtering innocent apples with her paring knife.
Oh man, HOW can I answer this Incredible Stupidity without resorting to lots of Profanity?
Just shows WHY our kids are failing if THIS is the caliber of Administration and Teachers in our Schools.
My best friend is home schooling his kids (him & his lovely wife) and they have a zero tolerence policy too – The Kids MUST learn to shoot, practice and when of legal age, concealed carry a pistol. THAT’S what I call a well rounded Education!
Paring knife hell no! .380 semi automatics for his kids!
Students would not have to bring knives to school. if the school hired lunch room matrons to cut the students food for them. They could hire more attendants and unionize them. Maybe this could be part of some some new federal government program!
The Superintendent has issued an unwise statement that is spin, as you did so well document. Where is the superintendent’s concern for the good name of his student, children who are in his and the principal’s charge?
There is none! Rudely, unprofessionally, and in slander he has assaulted the good name of one of those students and her family as well.
This district seems to need some pronto personnel changes and immediate letters of rebuke to the Superintendent, else they may suffer a defamation suit.
Bingo. If there was ever an “acted stupidly” moment in this, it was their attempt to lie their way out of this. People never seem to learn the Nixon lesson: it’s not the crime, it’s the cover-up. If the super hadn’t lied, he might have been able to survive this. Now, I think his job is over, and so is the principal’s.
The only question left is where does the student go to get her reputation back?
One of the most disturbing thing about incidents like this is realizing that such morons are in charge of children. The very stupidity of these decisions demonstrate that the adults in charge are terrible examples for young minds–to put dimwits like that in charge is, in fact, child abuse.
“This district seems to need some pronto personnel changes and immediate letters of rebuke to the Superintendent, else they may suffer a defamation suit.”
If the libel / damage has alread been done, surely a budget-busting lawsuit would be applicable even if Mr. Dimbulb Superintendent and Ms. Supercilious Principal back down, apologize and are told by a scrambling school board to hit the road immediately.
Increasingly, it seems to me that to change these bureacratic bullshit situations, you need to get their attention first. The 2×4 to hit them between the eyes with to get that attention two or three well-publicized lawsuit resulting in millions in damages each time. I simply don’t understand why none of the junk-groped grannies and nuns and 5-year-olds in airports haven’t started suing TSA, Obama and the rest of his posse for invasion of privacy, false arrest, and being too dumb to live and too ugly to breathe.
I simply don’t understand why none of the junk-groped grannies and nuns and 5-year-olds in airports haven’t started suing TSA, Obama and the rest of his posse for invasion of privacy, false arrest, and being too dumb to live and too ugly to breathe.
A woman was just banned from flying because she complained about how she was treated by the TSA. These people can do whatever they want to you.
“…you need to get their attention first. The 2×4 to hit them between the eyes…”
Oh, No! Clearly a veiled threat of Viiiiiiii-O-lence against duly elected and deputized education enforcement executives!
Now they’ll have to ban LUMBER from on or near school grounds, forcing the shut down of both woodshop classes and the girls’ softball program.
Remember: when wood is banned, only criminals will get a woodie!
If you think this incident is bad, you should see what happens when you mix in some cultural sensitivity.
Here in Canada, school administrators have, on occasion, attempted to stop students from carrying knives at school. However, if the student is an Orthodox Sikh, their religion *insists* that they carry a knife, called a kirpan, at all times. A kirpan ranges from two to eight inches long and is expected to be worn, concealed in the Sikh’s clothing, at all times. Kirpans have been banned in some countries, including Denmark and France, but it is legal to wear them in most public places in Canada, including in schools, even though many schools here also have zero tolerance policies for weapons.
Controversy over the kirpan first burst onto the national scene in 2001 when Montrealer Gurbaj Singh Multani, then a 12-year-old student, accidentally dropped his 8-inch ceremonial dagger at school. It triggered a five-year-long dispute with the school board over his right to wear the dagger. In 2006, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld his right to wear it to school in a landmark judgment.
A debate erupted in Montreal again about 18 months ago when police said a 13-year-old student had allegedly threatened two students with his kirpan. In April 2009, a judge found him guilty of threatening them, but with a hairpin used to secure a turban.
Source: The Toronto Star (http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/crime/article/791293–brampton-kirpan-attack-renews-debate-over-sikh-daggers)
“No Tolerance” or “Zero Tolerance” policies in and of themselves go directly against the US Constitution and our nation’s rule of law traditions. They are the favored methodology of uncritical thinkers and those lacking the capacity to make seasoned moral judgments – OK, I’m taking out the bulk of our senior educators, here. Such policies serve to remove the angst of dealing with judgmental situations from the delicate egos of the ruling class.
Our laws require violators to knowingly do [or choose to not do] a specific act. If one does [or doesn't do] the act unknowingly, generally no crime has taken place. But under NT/ZT enforcement foreknowledge is irrelevant. Ergo, the coward in control is free to issue punishment WITHOUT seeming to be personally involved or responsible. He/she is just doing the required job. Their hands are “clean”. Moral idiots!
For me there is a bigger issue here. Imagine if a member of the law enforcement community had conducted a search under the same circumstances. There was no probable cause for the search and no doubt a judge would suppress the evidence as being illegally obtained.
Maybe that whole constitution thing doesn’t apply to schools since I see them repressing free speech also.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
She may have given permission for the search which of course would negate her rights, but I am still disturbed that school officials could hold the equivalent of a line up to conduct searches based on the actions of others.
When I was in the military we would have what were called ‘health and welfare’ inspections which were little more then searches for illegal substances ranging from drugs and alcohol to explosives and ammunition, and in each case we were always briefed that even if we found something we could not stop the inspection until each and every member of the unit had been searched or the evidence seized would be inadmissible. My question is did the school continue searching everyone or did they stop once they found this knife?
According to Supreme Court rulings, students do not have the same search and seizure rights or freedom of speech rights in schools. There are good points and bad points to this. School teachers and administrators are supposed to use their discretion wisely in educating our kids.
The problem is that Unions, Bureaucracy, and Liberalism (the Three Musketeers of tyrany) have eliminated any wisdom or rational thought. They are ideologues. They do not care a whit about the welfare of the kids, just their perks and paychecks. They will match logic with slogans. They will crush your children at their whim and for their convenience.
Teach your children well, the School is not their friend. They must be clever and subtle as serpents to navigate the thickets of the education system that will gladly destroy them.
The answer is to fight to destroy the idiots that are causing the noticeable harm. The Superintendent and Principal must be run out of town on a rail. They must be made social pariahs – spat upon and reviled wherever they show their faces. The school board must be retaken, and must fire these pukes at all costs.
But none of that will happen.
This whole thing was not about the knife itself, It was to show the students who’s in charge. My mother was a high school teacher & elementary school counselor for quite a few years. She said every school has one or two people working there because they like to tell people what to do. Kids in school are an easy target, so that school employee gets good pay & “enjoys” their job. Win-win.
Indeed, there is probably a little Napolean behind this escapade.
I know this is asking too much but why is it awful to pack a paring knife in your lunch bag with parable things in it anyway?
How do we raise responsible adults if we don’t expect them to be responsible appropriately? (A 17 year old can handle a paring knife appropriately and be expected to do so.)
All 4 of our kids were public schooled.
In this culture today? I would homeschool (or perhaps private if I could swing it or charter) because public school administrations have become fearful controlling lunatics.
Reasonable, purposeful, and consequential discipline is eschewed (the story above about the kid punching another unprovoked and the *2* of them getting punished) as the schools overcorrect to show they are *doing something!!* (How about kids being told 2″ candy canes can sharpened and become weapons … !)
I think everyone’s afraid of lawsuits. But a few of these spurious lawsuits being slammed would start to put things back on balance.
My son was in the third grade and was discussing with a friend a cartoon he saw the previous day and the two were saying some of the dialog back and forth, laughing about some such silliness. A girl overheard my son talk about knives and told a teacher she felt ‘threatened.’ My son was then suspended for a day. I told my son, who simply had no idea why this talk would result in suspension (and I said this in the presence of the principal): This is a very stupid rule, but one that the school says you must obey. We can’t do anything about it. Just know that I am not angry at all with you. But don’t do it again.
The next year, my son went to school on the day after he went on an overnight scouting campout in the mountains. To his horror he found a small knife in his backpack. He walked to the sidewalk and stood there while the rest of the kids went to class. About 30 minutes later a teacher saw him, and went out to ask what was going on. My son showed them the knife, and said he couldn’t go onto school property with it or he’d be expelled, hence his location on the sidewalk. This teacher, bless his heart, laughed, took the knife and told my son to go to class. I was called to come pick it up. I asked if this was the correct thing to do – and the teacher said my son was brilliant, because if he had even brought the knife to the school office there would have been hell to pay.
Jeez. What an insane world we live in, and it’s sad that my son had to think this through and come up with a solution that wouldn’t have ruined him. Zero tolerance is absurd and dangerous.
And I’m sure if some lunatic kid or parent decided to shoot up the school, they’d do it from the sidewalk!
Now there’s one smart kid.
Remember, child molesters and child abusers seek employment where they have access to children. Many of them are school administrators.
Nice work, Bryan. Funny that no other “reporters” out there have actually done some “investigative reporting” (at least not that I can see). Now that the school has further defamed the student by telling the press she’s lying when she’s not, the damages are going to rise even further. Thank God my kids go to a private school. Hopefully, with what Ashley makes from this, she’ll be able to, as well.
After reading this, I was wondering: have the Department of Education and the TSA merged?
Oh dear. The superintendent just stepped in it big time. Bryan, you were right about the superintendent’s statement – he was parsing his words, if not lying outright, regarding her status. WRAL in Raleigh aired another follow-up this afternoon:
“Lee County Schools Superintendent Jeff Moss issued a statement Wednesday to say that the 3-inch-long knife was found in Smithwick’s purse, not her lunchbox. He also denied her claim that she had been suspended for the rest of the school year.
‘She is currently enrolled as a student at the school,’ Moss said.
A disciplinary contract signed last month by Smithwick, her mother, Southern Lee High Principal Bonnie Almond and Moss states, however, that Smithwick cannot ‘physically access SLHS campus for the remainder of the 2010-2011 school year.’”
http://www.wral.com/news/education/story/8855869/
Good for you.
Crucify them, upside down. They deserve it.
Time and time again, these incompetent, politically correct “educators” fail to use common sense in making decisions.
It makes me sick and it is no wonder that more and more parents keep their children AWAY from the “craziness” of public schools and their liberal administrators.
“Over two months after the event it is a mystery to us that the Smithwick’s concerns were not brought to our attention by the family through normal appeal procedures prior to going to the press.”
Allow us to help you penetrate the mystery:
1. Your principal made a totally untenable decision that threatens to damage a star student’s academic standing;
2. No one at the school or the paper-pushing administrative levels had enough sense to change it on their own; instead they issued repeated and all-to typical bureaucratic hack statements defending the over reaction;
3. The family cannot wait for your confidential, stacked-deck “appeals process,” to reach a conclusion that all reasonable appreciate right away;
4. The burden in any sane society and organization would be on you to justify why this foolish decision was not immediately countermanded: your appeals process obviously obligates the student to explain and establish (to the same type of oblivious bureaucrats that issued an immigration VISA to Mohammad Atta after 9-11), what they cannot possibly understand–common sense and fairness;
5. Even now instead of FIXING the problem, you have all “hunkered down” and circled the wagons in the hope that that pesky star student and her parents will go away.
That’s why. Because you credentialed but near oblivious administrators are blind to real life, common sense and fairness.
A comittee of truck drivers, trauma nurses and pipefitters could make the right decision in 2 minutes. So could an old style history or english teacher.
I used to carry a Swiss Army knife on my keyring every day when I was in high school in California (1985-89).
Some how, I didn’t go on a killing spree with a non-lockback knife that was more likely to harm me in a fight.
In this case, it’s a short paring knife you imbeciles — it’s not a weapon! Get a fragging clue you mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging, bureaucratic dolts!
Next restriction — no forks — sporks only…
This happened years ago in South Carolina, near Columbia (I was living there at the time). I think it was pre-Sept. 11, but post Columbine. The kid, a 5th grader (IIRC) had a knife he used to cut up his banana, because he had braces. He got a week suspension (again, IIRC).
The knife in question: a butter knife.
In pre-feminist America, women with intellectual talent could hope for little more than a career in teaching.
As such, generations of Americans were taught by some of the brightest and most motivated women in the nation.
But as other doors opened, teaching too often to be the “profession” of those better suited to selling cheeseburgers.
State “education” colleges churned out teachers and administrators whose own SAT scores would embarrass a military school for troubled boys.
And here we are, America being “taught” by those who can not think.
Ironic, isn’t it.
Wait – so her dad carries a lunchbox that looks like a purse?
Heck are kids still allowed to used pencils and pens or do they issue them crayons or even use a chalkboard. It is possible to kill someone with a pencil or ink pen and they are far longer and more pointy than a knife that is meant to peal a fruit!
Getting stabbed by a pencil is quite painful and can lead to a serious infection, so then I suppose all the children use crayons or turn in their work electronically!
This did happen. I think in Georgia, but can’t remember. Sixth grade teacher banned the entire class from having a pencil or pen in their possession – if needed, one would be issued to them to be returned when finished. Luckily, the school priinciple called a stop to the madness – made the news though.
Pitiful.
Back in grade three a girl stabbed me in the arm with a pencil. The lead broke off and everything. I don’t know why she did it – it came right out of the blue. One moment we were sitting together, doing whatever it is we did in grade three, then *whack*. Kids are psychos, really they are. I don’t think anything came of it. I didn’t hold a grudge – I just couldn’t figure out why she did it.
There was a little grey spot on my arm for a couple of decades afterward. I think it’s gone now.
One of our previous government ministers caused a pile of trouble a few years ago with some comments she made at a rotary club meeting – that the ban on metal utensils in aircraft was stupid, that somebody could attack an attendant with a sharp pencil if they wanted to (and she even used some fairly graphic terms – personally, I think she was a bit bonkers). She was right, of course.
Meanwhile, Adam Savage can walk onto a plane with 30cm metal blades in his carry-on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8N2EZSpFco
Just impose term limits on everyone when you vote. Judges, Schoolboard members, Councilmen. It makes no difference what their party is, just keep removing them after one term. Eventually they will get the message and start to police themselves.
“Over two months after the event it is a mystery to us that the Smithwick’s concerns were not brought to our attention…”
the Smithwick’s –> the Smithwicks’
So, Superintendent Moss can’t punctuate either.
Nice catch!
After getting my kids through schools, public & private, for a period of 35 years, I have come to expect occasional arbitrariness. Sometimes it’s because of liberal foolishness (banning dodgeball,) but usually it’s just lack of judgment. And there’s never really any arguing with it, because the schools are run by the administrators, for the administrators. That’s why, for instance, despite studies which rather conclusively prove that teenagers don’t wake up, mentally, till around 10 a.m., the school day still starts at 8. The administrators want to go home by 5, y’know.
If you can homeschool, do it. If you can drive or take the train, don’t fly. Same thing.
This was a… White …Girl…I think common sense would show that White Girls are in a small percentage of knife murders, only say .006 percent
common sense would say LOOK everybody this is a White Girl, no need for the standard rules.
This wasn’t a male or a minority, statistics should play a role in rule enforcement
I applaud this blogger for monitoring the nation’s high schools, this sort of absurdity must not go on.
Ok, for those who’ve noticed that there has been an update since my post … I’ve read it, and it does indeed contain the details from my link
You’ll be pleased to know that the board of education is calling an emergency meeting to sort things out:
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=7872258
That’s good.
Doesn’t any school have rifle teams anymore? We (long haired radicals of the day) walked around the with the guns (we had ‘em loaded just for fun) – commie kids with guns – “dangerous”. As an adult I have taught my kids to respect weapons but know how and when to use them – nothing wrong with weapons – it’s people who are skewed.
What this school has done is criminal – the kid did nothing wrong. The “principal” should be ashamed of himself. In fact, back “in the day” we did nothing wrong either – safetys were always on and we wore our team jackets. Schools and admins today are WAY out of control – personal responsibility is NOT taught, but criminalization of youth and instillation of fear IS. Welcome to 1984.
Chances are the student in question is not “suspended” because if she were she likely wouldn’t count towards student population for assorted Fed,State funds.
So she’s not suspended,she just can’t set foot on campus.Plus the off-campus work makes her present for attendance purposes.
Maybe not common-sense smart,but very bureaucratic smart.
Maybe not common-sense smart,but very bureaucratic smart.
“Bureaucratic smart” is an oxymoron, like “jumbo shrinp” or “Congressional intelligence.”
As I said earlier, we don’t need bureaucrats running our schools. In fact, the only place I want to see a bureaucrat is in the unemployment line or back in school, where they can learn a real skill in the hopes of someday becoming a productive member of society. Term-limit ‘em all, I say.
The best spin your tax dollars can buy. I bet they had a PR consultant and everything.
Unbelievable.
Nice work, Bryan, and stay on them!
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=7872258
The purse vs. lunch tote mystery may be explainable. If you watch the WTVD video, Ms. Smithwick, through her actions, seems to suggest that she was carrying the BYO lunch tote in her purse. Therefore, the version of events portrayed by Mr. Moss and Ms. Smithwick may not be mutually exclusive. That said, if Ms. Smithwick was indeed carrying the lunch tote in her purse, it still supports her version of events that the paring knife was part of a lunch tote mix-up.
Regarding the fact that these events happened in October, there may be an explanation for that, too. In the WRAL story, http://www.wral.com/news/education/story/8855869/ we learn this:
Perhaps this matter resurfaced due to the “criminal summons”. Of course, that implies that the family has accepted the “suspension” until this point.
Heidi Smithwick said she has tried repeatedly to call Moss since her daughter’s suspension to discuss the situation but hasn’t been able to reach him.
This may be the bureaucrat’s first line of defence: simply ignoring anything that is likely to make work, even a very small amount, for him.
A few years back, I contacted the Water Quality department of my city’s government to ask a question about the quantity of a particular chemical in our drinking water. I navigated the automated switchboard to get to the right individual but that individual did not pick up; instead, I was advised by the system that he was not available and that I was being switched to voice mail. So far so good; I understand that he may have been away from his desk for some reason. But rather than getting a chance to leave him a message, the voice mail system advised that his voice mail was full and it would not be possible to leave a message; it suggested calling back later. Perhaps the guy was on vacation and messages had piled up; I decided to call back a week or two later but the exact same thing happened: I was transferred to voice mail but the voice mail was full. It began to seem that this individual was either on an extended vacation or simply never bothered to deal with his voice mail because he had learned that voice mail might contain work for him, which he could avoid by simply not checking his voice mail. Since there was no option to talk to anyone else in the department, especially a supervisor, I decided to try to google him at the city government website since the phone system had stated his name. I easily found a document with his name on it and that document contained an email address so I wrote him an email asking him my question. To this day, several years later, he has not replied.
I strongly suspect that this individual – and quite likely many other government employees – simply ignore any communications that are likely to mean work for them.
I was bemused to see a news report not too long after my attempts to reach the city talking about how they wanted a new, modern phone system to facilitate communications with city residents. I remember muttering something to the effect that it would be a shame to spend tax money on an expensive new phone system when the city employees only used the existing system to duck work, not return calls!
Frankly, I think the tactic of ignoring calls is widespread in the bureaucracy and among the politicans that supposedly supervise them. During recent local elections, I read blurbs by various candidates for City Council asserting that they – apparently *unlike* other incumbents – returned calls from taxpayers. Apparently, returning calls from taxpayers is a gift bestowed by *some* councillors but certainly not all.
It appalls me that anyone paid by tax dollars, whether they are civil servants or politicians, has the discretion to simply ignore communication from the taxpayers who pay their salaries if the communication is relevant to their responsibilities. It appalls me equally that we as taxpayers endure this so passively.
Henry,
“I strongly suspect that this individual – and quite likely many other government employees – simply ignore any communications that are likely to mean work for them”
Or, he simply has a no-show job that you pay for…
Every October 20th ought to be “Bring your Knife to School Day” in memorial to this school administrations stupidity.
Every October 20th ought to be “Bring your Knife to School Day” in memorial to this school administrations stupidity.
In military circles, the approach being used by the government (the school in this case) is called “Advance to Contact” — keep encroaching people’s rights until they encounter resistance.
It’s interesting how they are now attacking / neglecting not only the constitution, but basic common law tenets as well. In this case, “mens rea,” or the “guilty mind,” which basically says that intent is a requirement in order for something to be a crime.
School administrators replaced judgement with rule reading a long time ago. There was an incident here a few years ago where a standout student was expelled for the remainder of the school year because school police found a butter knife rolling around in the bed of his pickup. I once sent my eight year old to school with the same backpack used for a hunting trip, and left a folding buck knife in it. Luckily he wasn’t suspended, but from the way I was treated, you would have thought I left a pound of cocaine or a loaded pistol in the backpack. We have the same problem at all levels of government. People we pay to exercise judgement are attempting to absolve themselves of responsibility by drafting lengthy and arcane lists of rules, and then throwing up their hands and telling us they just HAVE to follow the rules.
Private School, Home School, Vouchers.
The public schools have failed the public. Let’s admit this and move on to a better solution.
Admin has a way of bullying students/teachers etc. that they have had issue with…when I was in high school my father was a beloved teacher, and the principal hated it…I got detention for having a messy locker, a punishment that no other person in school suffered. My sister was validictorian, but he refused to tell her until senior skip day…my father was wise enough to make sure she was in school, as if she were gone Principal Power Trip would have denied her…the daily abuses of all of my father’s children took a toll. Principal Power Trip did it because he could. And that has not changed. I am a teacher now, and the arbitrary nature of how admin treats those with whom they have issues has not changed. Because of unions, they cannot willy nilly fire anyone, but they can certainly make it uncomfortable if they take a personal dislike…which is not meant to be a defense of unions and poor teaching, which also take their toll, but in this instance…ugh admin. been there done that.
@ Matthew,December 30, 2010 – 8:22 pm:
“Oh, for crying out loud. Try to keep this in mind: You Do Not Know What Happened.”
Assuming the current reporting in sum is accurate, we know enough. You know enough to know you were wrong to, in knee jerk fashion, support the school administration and to give them the benefit of the doubt as they made a statement contrary to what the student said. We know we were right yet again to in knee jerk fashion oppose an implementation of a “zero tolerance”–that’s because these policies are inherently evil and unintelligent.
“ALL I am saying is that the original story did not contain important information – i.e. the school’s side of the story, which contradicts the earlier story in some pretty important ways.”
The way it contradicts is that the school’s version lies and misleads–it wasn’t found in her purse, it was found in the lunch box–an apparatus intended to carry a lunch. The school has not backed up anything which would justify her being banned from the school campus, that is, that she was a threat to anyone.
“If she really is a model student (and even if she isn’t) there would have been people in her corner questioning that decision, and teachers are a pretty ornery bunch.”
So you’ve even sunk so low as to be using entirely made up evidence that the school administration was reasonable. I could as easily and as reasonably say that since she is not a suck-up, no-one at the school will stick their neck out for her.
“My point was that none of us has the full story.”
My point is, that what we know so far is all bad, bad, bad, and the bad is all the school’s, even after they’ve had their say (which say, we know, was an attempt at dissembling–lying).
“I know, I know, I’m part of the vast leftist conspiracy. Sure. I probably kick puppies, too.”
From what I’ve seen of you here, if someone in “authority” told you to kick a puppy, you’d only ask how high while you were winding up; and if you haven’t noticed which ideology generally has the run of the schools these days–who you are carrying water for, here’s a hint…
Since you seem to need a cluebat, it’s a relatively subtle hint.
You are a member of the vast left wing conspiracy. You are what you do.
I suggest that you wait until after the meeting that will occur in an hour or two before deciding that my … *ahem* … skeptical attitude (and I thought skepticism was supposed to be a good thing) is borne of the devil incarnate.
Your whole position is based on the assumption that everyone at the school is lying. I humbly suggest that your position is not entirely sensible.
It’s just a couple of hours. We’ll know what the emergency meeting decides soon enough. We probably won’t ever know the whole truth, but let’s wait and see.
Really, honestly, teachers aren’t all lying, evil, communist, corrupt, insane psychopaths every day of the year, day in and day out. If you consider that to be “made up evidence”, then I don’t think that’s my problem.
Matthew, the “purse not lunch box” was a lunchbox that looks like a purse. Once the PTB start using “misleading but legally accurate” spin, it’s a good bet that someone feels a need to play CYA. Once the administrator is shown to lack forthrightness, he loses his credibility. Done, imo.
First, the school administrators are idiots. I teach at a high school and if this happened at my school (assuming her story is correct) she would have had a very light punishment (or no punishment at all). Having said that, some of the student’s claims don’t pass the smell test.
She claims that she grabbed her dad’s lunch “box” by mistake, but that her lunch “box” looked like a purse. So her dad routinely carries a purse looking lunch box? I don’t know any guy that carries a lunch “box” like the one displayed. It’s possible, but unlikely.
Second, the school claims that the parents signed what was, basically, a disciplinary plan of action by which the kid agreed to take the course on-line, graduate and not come to campus. Did she not understand that “not coming to campus” meant no prom, no soccer, no graduation ceremony and no school functions of any kind?
I wonder if this is a case of a student agreeing to the disciplinary action in October, when it looked cool to not have to come to class, then, when the full consequences of not coming to school sunk in, she had some regret and wanted a do-over.
Finally, the school has stated that if the family will sign a release and waive confidentiality then the district will happily talk to the media. But the parents, so far, refuse to do so. The parents will talk to the media and tell their side, but won’t allow the school to do the same? How do we know that the kid “never had any discipline problems” or “was a model student”? The school cannot release this info.
This just isn’t adding-up.
I agree, obviously
Nice. 2 bureaucrats agreeing with each other that a third bureaucrat is in the right.
What’s made up Matthew, is your faith in the administrators, there’s no support for it. There’s also no reason for you to think that someone at the school would have bucked a morally corrupt administration to support the student, maybe they would, maybe they wouldn’t–your certainty has no foundation.
And yes, all “zero tolerance” policies are corrupt policies.
What there is support for is the notion that since the meeting the public was invited to has been made a “closed” session as the first motion of the school board, they have learned facts which do not put their lackeys in a good light.
There’s always a slim chance it’s all a hoax to ensnare us wingers, but Occam’s razor sez the folks you are claiming we should withold judgement on are at fault.
Per this eyewitness:
http://ncguns.blogspot.com/2010/12/ashley-smithwick-and-paring-knife.html
The school board has clammed up, lawed up, and provided no exoneration or explanation whatsoever. They doubled down on the stupid.
Where, praytell Matthew, is the illumination you were so sure would put the school in a good light?
HT to Instapundit for that link to a local blogger. Haste makes for absent attribution. Apologies.
PS. The blogger above shows the NC code involved, and if it is the sum of it, the student cannot have broken any laws even if she had taken the paring knife to school deliberately.
1. All the facts aren’t in yet, but the school continues to look worse as more information becomes available.
2. The prosecutors who charged Smithwick with a misdemeanor should not be overlooked. I assume that, even if the probability is small for a first offense, a weapons misdemeanor can be punished by incarceration. Egregious as the school administrators may have been, they did not threaten Smithwick with jail time.
3. The responsible officials usually get off scot free after an abuse of government authority is reversed (with no compensation to the victims for their aggravation, risk, and expense). Such abuses will continue until the responsible parties are punished by–at minimum–budget cuts, firings or demotions, and squelched political careers.
Matthew,
One. My point at 28 is that the superintendent had forgotten that his “in loco parentis” duty to the students in his charge includes the duty to respect and protect the dignity and good name of his charges. That of course incorporates a duty not to slander, and a duty not to shade their reputation by indirect suggestion. Yet the super’s statement about the carry device being a purse was either direct slander or indirect false lights slander, imo. It was unprofessional.
Two. I’ve been through such a circumstance with one of my sons, suspended for a personal grooming tool that included a 1″ blade. In this State it goes on record as a weapon’s violation. I went into a conference with the Jr. High Principal and VP, and my lawyer who himself was a school board member in one nearby district and a Solicitor for yet another local school board. I even had researched the law, had talked to the legislative aide who had drafted the state law on school weapons policy, had a legislative history printed out, a letter from the Senator who had sponsored the law, all to the effect that the law ALLOWED discretion, and made a distinction between tools and weapons. Yet the Prinicpal refused to budge.
I’ve also worked since as a substitute teacher and school discipline aide — in some pretty tough schools, far tougher than my son’s. I did so to learn THEIR point of view. I remain unimpressed and sick of the brute and ignorant attitude of administrators like that Principal. To the point of this reply to you, I say all that to affirm that REAL EXPERIENCE guides my harsh read of the school officials in this girl’s case and similar cases.
The adminstrator’s in tougher, but well-run, schools would have laughed at such a lousy official response, imo.
“I even had researched the law….the law….made a distinction between tools and weapons. Yet the Prinicpal refused to budge.
Of course he refused to budge.
They believe they are our masters
All who question them are a threat to their supreme, unquestionable authority.
They will suffer the taxpayers millions in lawsuit fees before they will acknowledge your concerns.
Just HEARING your concerns, just ENTERTAINING your mere presence in the matter, is an insult to their lofty opinion of themselves.
They cannot back down, or change their minds, because that means YOU WIN the contest of wills.
They will simply bankrupt the local taxpayer while continuing to insist they are right.
Nothing short of blood and violence will ever change them.
As a high school teacher for almost 20 years in a middle class school district, there are some things missing here.
First of all. The story does not have all the facts that are needed to make a general assumption of innocence by the public. There are many ‘college’ bound kids that make poor choices at school, carry knives, smoke weed, you name it. Just because a kid is taking higher level classes, doesn’t mean they are perfect kids. Secondly, none of the students prior discipline issues are listed (which they won’t be), maybe she has a discipline rap sheet two pages long(we don’t know that either). The student was searched for a reason related to drugs, the knife was found at that point. Obviously they were looking for something else when they found the knife.
Just because the BYO bag is ‘listed’ a lunchbag, doesn’t mean the girl had just her lunch in it. You would be amazed at what kids bring their lunches and school supplies in. She probably used the bag as a purse and also put her lunch in it, which then makes in a dual purpose carry bag/lunch bag. We do not have that information. And this happened two months ago? and the media just now picks it up? Parents had the right to appeal, and they didn’t? Obviously there is more to the story than the facts that are initially given. Let’s get more information.
It has been stated in numerous articles related to this story that the student in question has been a Straight-A, no trouble at all in her entire academic career, star athlete and explicitly stated that this is the very FIRST time she has ever gotten into trouble of any kind while in high school (and based on these reports, I would be willing to bet her clean record extends back to middle and elementary school as well).
Sorry, but based on everything I have been following here and elsewhere on the net, it looks like the school over-reacted and are now afraid to backtrack because it will leave them open to a lawsuit and everything they have done to try and bolster their case has only made them look worse and/or stupid.
Plus, everyone posting on this thread who seems to be siding with the school/principal/superintendant keep saying “Let’s get more information.” But I notice all the information only comes from the Smithwick family. The school keeps trying to shut everyone involved up and even after announcing a “Public Meeting” concerning this event they close the meeting to the public and then refuse to say what was discussed.
Sorry, but it looks more and more to me like the school knows they fraked up and are now trying damage control but are being so stupid about how they are going about it it’s only making it look worse for themselves.
It appears you are correct, but don’t forget that the school CAN’T talk. The kid is a juvinile and subject to confidentiality. The district DID say that if the family signs a release, they’d be happy to tell the story, but the family has refused to do so.
-Never been introuble? We can’t possibly know that to be true.
-Star athlete? Doubt it. LCHS has a pretty poor girls soccer team and her name does not appear in any Google search for ODS soccer or as a potential recruit for any college program.
-Straight A student? I never saw that in a story. Just that she had taken advanced classes.
-Frist time she has been introuble? Again, we can’t possibly know unless the school is allowed to discuss her record. It isn’t.
I’m still a little skeptical.
There has been far more evidence given in these news articles that the student is straight-A than that she is a failing troublemaker who deserves the over-the-top punishment she has received. And you are wrong about the release. An article linked on a companion story to this one on PJM states the family has NO problem signing a release and looks forward to doing so. They also said they were never told about the appeals process and have been stonewalled by the superintendant since day one.
Looking worse and worse for the school and the superintendant.
Here is the new article linked on the other PJM thread:
http://www2.nbc17.com/news/2010/dec/31/2/lee-county-school-board-standing-behind-superinten-ar-658135/
To quote the student’s mother: “So I signed the agreement, but I did not know I could appeal the agreement,” Smithwich said. “I had yet to speak with the superintendent after I left message after message.”
The article also says: Dr. Moss says he could not release Ashley’s record without a release from her mother. Heidi told NBC-17 that she was never asked to sign a release, but has no problem with it.
Whiskey, I have been in schools where race WAS an indicator of trouble, where half the student body was black, twenty percent “Hispanic”, and thirty percent other. More than 80% of the high schoolers found in the in school detention room on any given day were black. Yet, thankfully, we had no metal scanners, and were liberal wrt/ things that might weapons. Only when blandished or used as such did we stomp down on the student.
The bigger indicator of trouble, fwtw, was being from a broken family. More blacks are that way.
This case is NOT about race. It is about irrational fears.
I’m a teacher at a public school. First, let me state that I don’t believe the kid’s story. I know that administrators can be heavy handed and god knows that schools do dumb things, but I don’t think they acted inappropriately in this case. In reading behind the lines I find that the following happened:
-Drugs were found on a different student. As a result of the drugs being found, our student was searched. For some reason the school had reasonable suspiscion to search our student related to the drugs that were found. Schools can search with “reasonable suspicion”, as was established in New Jersey v TLO. No one has claimed that the search was unlawful, by the way, and the school cannot state why they searched this student, beyond what they already stated.
-This kid was caught with a knife. This is not good. All schools have policies about weapons on campus.
-The kid stated that the knife was in her lunch “box”, which looked like a purse but wasn’t a purse. She claimed that she accidentally took her dad’s lunch “box” purse in the morning because her and her dad have identical lunch purses. I find this to be unlikely.
-The kid states that she is a good student and has never been in trouble, is an athlete and takes college courses. She did not state that she is a straight A student or a highly skilled varsity athlete, by the way. That has been infered by various members of this community. Anyway, none of this can be verified by the school as academic and disciplinary records are sealed and confidential.
-At some time over the past two months, the police charged our student with misdemeanor weapons possession. This charge is separate from the school discipline policy, by the way. The school cannot charge a student with a crime. Again, there has been no attempt to state that the search was illegal or occurred without reasonable suspicion, in which case the exclusionary rule would apply and the kid couldn’t be charged (although she could still be disciplined by the school).
-Our student agreed to a disciplinary plan of action that would keep her off of campus for her senior year, she would take her one graduation requirement on-line and be give a diploma. She and her parents agreed to that plan and even signed the plan. That plan is private and confidential, but it can be used against our student in juvinile court as an admission of guilt.
-Two months after the fact, the family became upset at the plan and turned to the media. As far as we know, they did not file an appeal with the school (all districts have such policies) or try to approach the school board. They did use a lawyer to appeal the school’s decision, despite the fact that criminal charges are pending and the family must certianly have obtained a lawyer’s services. Instead, they went to the media. The media.
-The school board held an emergency meeting to discuss the case. They met in closed session, which is requried by law when discussing individual student discipline. They decided that the principal acted correctly and released a brief statement. The board is elected, by the way.
-The school district has asked the family to sign a release and waive confidentiality so they can address the accusations of the family and discuss the case publicly. The family has refused to do so.
This just seems fishy, everyone. I wouldn’t be too quick to side with this student. She’s in a position to claim anything, and her claims cannot be refuted by the school. She’s also using the public distrust of schools to further advance her position (argumentum ad populum). And most of us are falling for it.
Be careful here, folks. Be careful.
“I’m a teacher in a public school.”
In other words you’re a bureaucrat. So of cause you take side with your fellow bureaucrats.
And like all bureaucrats alike, you have long forgot that rules are there to protect people. People are not there to protect rules.
Bureaucrat? I’ve never seen myself that way. Your ad homimen attack aside, your are correct that the rules are there to protect people. But the school has to balance the rights of the students to be “secure in their persons, papers and effects” with school safety. And it’s a tough balance, and I normally side with the kids. In Morse v. Frederick, I side with the kid. In Safford v. Redding, I side with the kid. That principal should be in jail, in fact.
Still, in my district, there were 14 middle school kids with vodka in their water bottles two years ago. And 7 bomb threats last year at the middle school. And a stabbing (well, more of a slahsing actually). We’ve had an uptick in drugs on campus, mostly kids selling perscription opiate drugs, which have resulted in a few expulsions. And we are a good district, too! Most of the discipline of these kids occurs behind closed doors to protect the confidentality of the student. Yet every single time, some clown (priest, or cousin or parents) comes forth to say “these are such good kids, and they deserve a second chance”. And the school cannot answer back by realeasing the disciplinary record.
Look, if this was truly a mistake by the kid and she has an excellent disciplinary record and great grades and has never once been in trouble and she didn’t know the knife was there, then the superintendent is a jerk and should be fired.
But, for me at least, the facts simply don’t add up. So, parents, please sign the release and let’s examine the record more thoroughly.
You state you personally find it unlikely that the student and her father would have the same kind of ‘lunchbox.’ Just because you PERSONALLY find that unlikely doesn’t make it any less true.
My daughter and I have the exact same lunchboxes, and ours are actual metal lunchboxes like you used to see all the kids carry in the 1970′s, and we both have the same box because we are both fans of Firefly/Serenity. So I find this highly likely that a father and daughter would carry the same lunch containers.
And if you perhaps did some research instead of jumping to conclusions (like the school/school superintendant did) you would learn that the lunch containers you have so much trouble believing a father and daughter would have two of look like this…http://www.wral.com/news/local/image/8845992/?img_list=8845991%2C8845992&ref_id=8845676
Regarding the lunch “purse” box shared by father and daughter I do find it unlikely, but not impossible. It would be quite simple to solve in court, though. Simply ask the colleagues of the father if he uses that type of lunch box and generally has a pairing knife.
Look, as this story is presented here this looks very, very bad for the superintendent.
BUT, the principal and superintendent agreed on a plan of action regarding the discipline of this kid. The parents also agreed.
Then the school board, which is elected and easily subject to political pressure, found nothing wrong with the discipline.
The police charged her with weapons possession, a misdemeanor, but they cannot indict her. A DA had to do that, so if she is facing misdemeanor weapons posession charges then she has been indicted.
So you have the police, the principal, the superintendent, the entire elected school board and, I’m assuming, a district attorney all agreeing. And the family and student innitially agreeing, but now changing their minds two months later by going to the media. The parents and kid can claim anything, and their claims cannot be refuted. All the while the mom is claiming that she simply didn’t know there was an appeals process. So she can masterfully manipulate the media, but can’t open the stuednt handbook?
And, in a school full of teachers, guidance counselors and coaches, no one has come out and stated that this kid is getting rail-roaded by the system (other than the kid and her parents). I’m a coach, and if something like this was happening to one of my athletes and I knew that the kid was awesome and was being rail-roaded, I’d speak-up (if our crappy union is good for one thing, it is that it generally allows us to speak our mind without fear of being fired). Yet no adult, other than parents, has done so, to my knowledge.
Why is it so hard to belive that perhaps this isn’t a great kid with a great record and that the discipline was justified?
U Wrote:BUT, the principal and superintendent agreed on a plan of action regarding the discipline of this kid. The parents also agreed.
Ahh! But that’s the heart of this whole problem, because according to the articles I have read, AFTER the parents agreed, the superintendant then CHANGED the conditions he imposed and BANNED the student from the campus for the rest of the academic year! That would be like you agreeing to pay the $100 plus $12 penalty on taxes you didn’t realize you needed to pay (perhaps you forgot about that small lottery win you had back in February, but the IRS didn’t) and then after you sned in your check for $112 the IRS says “We have now decided since you broke the letter of the law, we’re going to jail you for 12 months and fine you an additional $10,000. Now that wouldn’t be too fair, would it? But here you are, defending the petty bureaucrats who have done basically the same thing to a girl who, according to every interpretation of the law I have seen regarding this, DID NOTHING WRONG! Every statute that has been quoted states there MUST BE INTENT. How can anyone have intent to do something they didn’t even know they had??? Please, explain that.
Sorry, but you’re on the losing side of this arguement.
I’ve read stories that claim the parents didn’t know that they could appeal, but I haven’t read that the discipline program changed. I did read that the mom tried to contact the Superintendent and he didn’t return calls, which sounds plausible. I’ve never met a good superintendent, in fact. This is one apsect of the story that I do believe. In fact, I’m quite confused as to the superintendent’s role in this. Building principals discipline students, and the superintendent supports that decision (or overrules it). So, I’m confused. If what you say is true, and the discipline program changed without the knowledge of the parents, then she’s getting a raw deal.
But, color me skeptical.
U also wrote: Why is it so hard to belive that perhaps this isn’t a great kid with a great record and that the discipline was justified?
And why is it so hard for you to believe that this girl is exactly as she has been presented, innocent, a great student, and is being railroaded by a seemingly corrupt administration? I have seen nothing, I repeat NOTHING, that even HINTS this girl has had any disciplinary problems in the past. In fact, most articles explicitly state “…Has never been in trouble before in high school.”
Why must you doubt those reports and make up your own suspicions based on absolutely no evidence?
The “she’s a good kid” defense is overplayed. Like the race card. Look at any instance of school violence and you have appologists stating that the perpetrator was a “good kid”. Every time. Even Harris and Kilebold in Columbine were “gifted”. It’s a defense that I find dubious and suspicous. Just like I find “a teacher overheard” as rational for search or suspension as being dubious.
If you feel she is being railroaded, then the conspiracy is a deep one. DA, police, principal, teacher, superintendent AND school board. And no adult, other than her parents, has come to her aid. Not her coach or teachers or anyone. Not that we know of, at least.
I’ve read stories with the title “star athlete”, despite finding no evidence to support that claim (checking ODS sites and the record of the LCHS girls soccer program). In fact, the more stories I read, the more saintly this girl becomes! It’s like a bad game of telephone. First she’s a good kid that takes college level classes. Fine. I can easily believe that. Then she’s a star athlete, straight A student who is missing out on a chance for soccer scholarships (despite the fact that college soccer programs all throughout the country have already awarded scholarships to incoming freshmen).
And the family can claim anything, but the district can’t respond. Records are confidential. But the district asked for the waiver. This indicates to me that they have some damning info. It’s a trap for the girl and the family.
I am morbidly curious to see this girls records, but I hope, for the sake of the kid, that the parents do not sign the waiver. If she has any discipline problems at all, she becomes a liar.
In the end, I hope you are right. I hope it’s a case of a d-bag superintendent that can easily be fired while this kid can be exonerated and go on to become a productive member of society. I fear, though, that the kid is in over her head and the school district, in asking for the waiver, is calling her bluff.
Anyway, check the Sanford Herald. If anyone has a subscripion to the site, cut and paste some of the comments from the stories. I’d love to see what the locals are saying.
Funny.
A friend of my teenage niece was handcuffed and sitting in the back of a police car. She was caught with both a fifth of whiskey and a platter full of pot laced brownies in the back seat of her car. When the parent showed up she argued incessantly that her daughter was a good kid. The cop said: “Mam, your daughter is handcuffed in the back of my car with alcohol and drug possession charges and you are saying she is a good kid, are you kidding me? Let’s review the situation.”
Yes good, smart, straight laced kids do make poor choices.
Inappropriate behavior is inappropriate behavior.
Milton,
“And, in a school full of teachers, guidance counselors and coaches, no one has come out and stated that this kid is getting rail-roaded by the system”
Are you HIGH?
What teacher would cross a picket line during a teachers strike?
Answer: the same ones that would PUBLICLY speak out against the Principal, board of ed, and Police Chief
You are part of the machine, you know how it goes…
Take your nonsense down the road
Those who can, do,
Those who cant, teach,
And those who cant teach, teach GYM’
When the teachers are picketing, who do you think they are picketing against? The superintendent is the opponent. The school board is the opponent. Trust me, teachers do not see the superintendent or school board as being friendly or collegial. They are the bad guys. They are most certianly NOT part of the same machine. In fact, teachers publically speak out against their districts policies all the time. What do you think that picket is? We love to twist the knife.
As a teacher and coach, I can say that if this happened to one of my “upstanding” students, awesome athletes, great kids, then I would publically fight for the kid. I’ve done it in the past, in fact (although over nothing this serious). The fact that no non-parental adult has come to the aid of this kid’s character is interesting. That’s all I’m saying.
69. Milton: This just seems fishy, everyone. I wouldn’t be too quick to side with this student. She’s in a position to claim anything, and her claims cannot be refuted by the school. She’s also using the public distrust of schools to further advance her position (argumentum ad populum). And most of us are falling for it.
Be careful here, folks. Be careful.
Thanks for the insider perspective, Milton.
According to this report, Mrs. Smithwick is hedging about releasing Ashley’s records.
I have been on the Smithwicks’ side as this unfolded and I remain so–but I have been taking pains to note that all the facts are not in yet.
Milton, let me destroy your argument simply.
Define weapon. A paring knife is not a weapon. Legally, it is not a weapon. It has to be 4″ long to be a weapon.
Do you not have home ec classes in your school? Do the kids not get entrusted with cooking tools? A paring knife is a kitchen tool, not a weapon, by definition.
You are a teacher. 90+% of teachers vote Democratic. They tend to be urban in background. The things that rurals find to be necessary tools of existence get seen as horrors by those who are never exposed to nature. “Why would she ever need a knife?” Well, why not? You are imposing your ignorance of other ways of living onto the lives of others.
Her Dad would carry such a lunchbag? Well, yes. Again, why not? Isn’t it marketed for that very purpose? Even if you find it odd, so what? People do odd things. Such do not cast doubt on the girl’s story. None. Because they do not have to conform in their lives to what you consider normal and proper. People just live differently, and it is time you learned how other folks actually live, instead of believing everyone thinks the way you do.
“Just because she is taking advanced placement does not mean she is a good kid.” Actually, that is exactly what it means. Ask any insurance company about good grades and insurance rates. Also, in the academic environment, good grades and advanced placement is the standard of achievement. It defines good kid. Participation in team sports is another indicator, as there is a direct link in behavior training. School sports lead to less delinquency. Proven fact.
Your whole line of argumentation is bereft of worldliness and logic. Mostly, you demonstrate the same intolerance and rigidity, and you don’t even recognize it in yourself. Folks who live outside the Ivory Tower know immediately that this is nonsense. She brought a paring knife to school. Big deal. “But you don’t understand!” Umm, yes, I do. It is an effing paring knife.
When I see a man on the street packing a gun, I do not feel threatened. It is normal to my way of thinking. I feel safer, not less safe. A citizen with a gun is a Good Thing. I guarantee you do not have the same reaction. This kitchen tool gets seen as a weapon. You fear it. THAT is stupid.
What should have been done by the principle is to take the kid to the office, tell her to pick up the knife on the way home, and to try to be more careful in the future. End of issue. Respect given and received.
“But you don’t know how it is.” Again, yes I do. I know that if a child has a juvenile record, it is sealed when he turns 18, but your academic record goes with you all through school. This incident will remain on her academic record. It can ruin her opportunities in many places. The principals need to be cognizant of that, that they may ruin a child’s future if they are not careful and wise; ruined because of a mistake made as a child.
I’ll bet you the child and parent’s version turn out to be far closer to the actual truth than the administration’s version. It’s an easy bet to make.
Oh. And the police then got involved. What do you want to bet that this was an effort at intimidation of the parents and the kid, or just payback?
Meanwhile, you, Milton, need to get out more; see how other folks live. Try exiting your homogeneous world. I recommend a gun club.
First off, I am conservative. That’s why I subscribe to PJTV. I will say this, though. It’s getting harder and harder to be a teacher around conservatives than a conservative around teachers. Some of your “ivory tower” and “you need to get out more” talk is proof of that fact. Much of your comment seems to assume what I “think” and who I am. But you are mostly incorrect. I’m simply trying to figure out what the school was thinking.
Look, I have no problem with the paring knife. You are correct; it should have been taken away and she should have been asked to pick it up after school (but if it’s not a weapon, why even take it away?). So why didn’t the school do just that? Why is the DA charging her? You think the police like running out to the schools all day dealing with, what is essentially, student discipline? And if it is truly not a weapon (which I agree with, by the way), then why bother? Unless there is more than meets the eye.
I think you have this perception that school board = superintendent = administration = police = teachers = DA. These are all seperate enteties, but I’ve already made that point. I’ll simply say that there is far more friction between those groups, in my experinece, than there is cooperation. And the superintendent is new this school year. Did he, in the three months he’s had the job, have time to build such a strong relationship with the police and DA that they could unskeptically bully such a kid? It’s possible, but I digress.
As for the AP classes, perhaps YOU might need to get out a little more. Many of the students in advanced classes are great kids, but some are just awful. Check any school shooting or violent incident and you see the words “gifted” or “good kid” or “honors student”. But I’ve made that point already. Moving on…
As for the sports, you are somewhat incorrect. I actually wrote my masters thesis on the academic achievement and athletic participation. Athletes get better grades than non-athletes. This cannot be disputed. There are theories as to why this is the case, and I take your argument of “behavior training” to indicate that you feel that athletes learn skills in sport that carry into the classroom. That is simply one theory. There are others, in fact. Some theories are even more solid, but, again, I digress.
When looking at instances of bullying and hazing, female athletes in team sports are more likely than non-athletes (or athletes in individual sports) to engage in that behavior. When looking at instances of bullying, hazing and sexual assult, male athletes in team sports are much more likely to engage in such behavior than non-athetes (or athetes in individual sports). When looknig at instances of violent attacks, sexual assult and rape on college campuses, there is a disproporinate number of team sport athletes engaging in that behavior as opposed to non-athletes. When looking at the NFL, NBA, MLB or NHL, those athletes have much higher crime rates than non-athletes. That’s not so say a kid on the marching band or cross country team doesn’t rape or bully, but it is far less likely statistically. It’s also not to say that every girl on the soccer team is a bully, but it is more likely to be the case than a non-athlete. I am certianly not saying that this kid was a bully. I’m only mentioning this because of your statement that participation in team sports is an indicator that a kid is “good”. But we are missing the point.
The issue comes down to this.
Perhaps this is a very nice kid who made one minor mistake (accidentally) and was railroaded by a corrupt system, top to bottom, and people need to be held accountable. The conspiracy is so deep it involves a DA, entire school board and any other adult that my speak well of the kid. If this is the case, it is a blight on education and criminal law and everyone involved should be fired, from the teacher that first searched all the way to the DA.
OR
The search involves issues we don’t quite know, simply because all info hasn’t been released (perhaps there was a threat or perhaps drug dealing at LCHS is a huge problem or perhaps there had been a stabbing recently and kids were warned about bringing knives to school or perhaps any other number of relevent scenarios). Maybe the kid isn’t as good as she claims (or perhaps her peer group isn’t, and she got caught-up with a bad crowd, but who knows?). Maybe she is lying (but a kid in trouble would never lie, would they?, and parents never lie about their kids, do they?).
So, either she is right (a bet you would like to make) or she is lying (a bet I’m certianly not prepared to make until the facts come out).
When Nifong indicted those LaCrosse players at Duke, idiot professors used their bias to immediately assume guilt and rascism. The intelligent among us said “maybe we should wait until the facts come out”.
When something like this happens at a school, political bias comes into play again, and people who hate public schools rally. I’m simply saying that the skeptical eye should be placed on the kid as well as the school.
And I don’t need to go to gun clubs. I have 22 acres with an awesome rifle range against a really cool cliff, so I can shoot whenever I want, which is less than I’d like due to ammo prices being so damn high.
Good response, for the most part. Some quibbles:
Why was it an issue in the first place? Because, even though you do not see it as a weapon, most of your brethren do, as I charged you with. (My apologies.) Because of this fear, they have this ZT policy. ZT means everything gets lumped together. A knife is a knife is a knife. It does not matter if it is a fighting knife or a butter knife.
Here’s the correct response: “We have to take it away for now, because some people would interpret the policy overly-strictly, and you would be in serious trouble. Please try to be more careful in the future. Pick it up on your way home.” The child learns a valuable lesson about the way the world works, and also gains respect for you.
“There has to be more than meets the eye here.” Unfortunately, no, there doesn’t. The essence of conservatism is an understanding and acceptance of human nature. The simplest, and most-likely, explanation is that the Principal is a bureaucratic jackass. Such gravitate to the government positions. Perhaps they were not originally such, but they get a taste of power, however small a taste, and it corrupts them. Some folks just can’t handle it at all… some flaw in their psyche.
You are coming at this from the position that people are good, and decent, and rational. Simply, they are not. The fact that this episode exists demonstrates the failure of the Principal to act properly, with wisdom. The Principal is the surrogate father, while the kids are in school. He is supposed to guide, educate, discipline, and love all those kids. He failed to act with love and wisdom, and the district is doubling down on that failure.
AS for the agreement, I ill bet the Mother is telling the truth. She signed the agreement, not knowing her rights in the process. How could she know such arcane things? She thought they were being fair, perhaps even benevolent, based on what they told her. She thought they were good, and decent, and rational. She was deceived, partly by herself.
AS for the collusion with other aspects of government… perhaps not in your experience, but it is in mine. It is often an incestuous relationship. These folks are fellow travelers. Racking up favors is how they prosper. There is an “Us vs. Them” mentality. It is how the game is played by the careerists. The less skilled you are in your actual job, the more you have to play the political games. The best teachers usually have no use for such. Often, they are curmudgeonly.
As such, they never rise, remaining teachers throughout their careers. Generally, the Peter Principle applies. The poor teachers become the administrators. The poor scientist becomes the administrator. The least able to do the job, become in charge of those who are the most able. Even the truly mediocre hope to prosper as best they may, often not even knowing they are mediocre.
In the end, this was either stupid or malign. Folly or knavery? Whichever, the result is exactly the same: evil.
A parallel is Liberalism/Progressivism. There are Stalin’s “Useful Idiots”, the true believers, and there are the knaves who know, and are behind, the tropes. The result is a slow undermining of our society, our culture. Fools or knaves, the result is the same evil.
The most simple answer is not that the principal is a jackass, but that the mother and daughter were fudging the truth. With the release of the records, some of the picture becomes more clear. She had a disciplinary record that included, among other things, a suspension for pushing a kid. Despite all we’ve heard about Ashley being a “good” kid and “model student” who has never been in trouble, she really isn’t. This is not to say her expulsion was justified. But when I stated that there is more to this than meets the eye and that the parents MIGHT be lying, I was correct. There was more than meets the eye. And I’ll bet that there still is some stuff we don’t know. Not about Ashley, but about the school and the circumstances of the search.
So, now that we know the kid isn’t as stellar as innitially percieved, I’ll ask a question:
Every story about Ashley’s expulsion started or was headlined with the statement that she was a great kid, model student and so on. That clearly isn’t the case, and new stories are using the word “typical” student, instead of model student, which also isn’t the case. Typical kids don’t get suspended. But my question is quite simple. Does it matter? Does it matter that she isn’t a model kid? Does it matter that she isn’t a star athlete or that she actually has been in trouble? Does that justify her expulsion?
I would say that her previous disciplinary record does NOT justify her expulsion. The punishment was still too harsh. The only way the punishment would be acceptable is if she was violent in the past, had a previous weapons issue or had been warned prior to this incident. OR if the school had recently had a stabbing, kids were warned in general and the school was being dilligent. We certinaly don’t know any of this to be the case, but it is possible.
Please encourage Ashley to skip high school and focus on her work at junior college. She can learn anything worth learning with the resources of the web and a good library. She can get experience in most fields by volunteering. She can write her own job description and make her own job.
High school, and her high school in particular, is rapidly loosing its educational function. The behavior of her principal, superintendent, and school board make a mockery what little learning is taking place. In a few short years, high school will be irrelevant, aside from its nominal propaganda functions.
Ashley will be far better off without high school.
This sounds like Bonnie Almond or someone else has a personal hatred of that student (perhaps too pretty/smart/sporty/promising?) and is deliberately trying to ruin that young womans life, just because she can.
Either way whatever you guys do, make sure that Ms. Almond and her miserablist colleagues get the sack so they cannot victimise another kid!
First of all, Trial Lawyers, by definition, are the TOPS in the whole field of attorneys. Ashley and her parents, with this publicity, can hire the best of the best.
The “purse” was a ruse. Because there’s NOTHING in the school’s photograph to demonstrate that it contained: A wallet. Tissues. Keys. Tampons. Or the “normal array of cosmetics, even.” The bag probably contained LUNCH! And, the school not only CONFISCATED the lunch (something you couldn’t do to terrorists meals at GITMO) … The school HID THE EVIDENCE!
No. I’m not an attorney. And, yes, there are lousy attorneys out there. Just as there are lousy scientists, whom, for money, will LIE about HOCKEY STICKS. Save us from the decline.
JEFF MOSS, is the superintendent. He screwed up in Beaufort County, before ending up where he is now. The likelihood of some other school district EVER hiring him … has just slimmed down considerably. This story is what’s called VIRAL.
2011 will be a better year for Ashley than 2010. And, that “public notice of a meeting” … that went into CLOSED SESSION? What happens when hundreds of thousands of people got this tidbit added to everything else?
Oh, man. Wait until a defense attorney does DISCOVERY! Wait until the school district learns a defense attorney can even question the cafeteria help. Just to find out if they even use knives at that school. Or is it really “zero-tolerance?”
JEFF MOSS didn’t expect his name to get known. It wasn’t. Until the “OPEN” meeting got shoved into a “CLOSED” one … Where at the end a LYING piece of paper got recorded.
Remember this: Even judges who have political appointments, and can’t recognize evidence at all. They rule by what the unions tell them to do. That moron just opens the door to an APPEAL.
Raising money on the Internet? Easy Peazy.
Does this story have legs, or what?
Do you recognize the paring knife? It’s the kind included in PUMPKIN CARVING kits. Do you know how young kids are who are given these tools to carve pumpkins?
Man, a trial lawyer will have a field day with these idiots!
Yes, high school is a waste of time for very bright kids. Alas, though, the peers attend the prom. And, for this alone, I have seen judges stepping forward. Remember the case where the girl wanted to bring her girl friend? She got a ruling in her favor. (So the school canceled the prom for everyone.)
Milton Wrote at January 1, 2011 – 4:57 pm:
“I’ve read stories that claim the parents didn’t know that they could appeal, but I haven’t read that the discipline program changed.”
Peter responds: And that statement right there proves to me a suspicion I have had since yesterday afternoon, that you are merely making up your own ‘facts’ based on your assumptions about a kid you know nothing about. Because almost every article on this matter, if you had bothered to actually read them, states, and I quote, “Smithwick was initially given a 10-day suspension, then received notice that she was suspended the rest of the school year.”
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/8845676/
Again, I ask, if you were told by the IRS that you owed back taxes and a penalty, you paid the taxes and penalty, and THEN the IRS decided to fine you an exorbitant fee and jail you for 6 months, would YOU think that fair? By your own arguement against this girl, you do think so!
Interesting. I had not read that.
To offer some insider info, it is typical to innitially suspend a kid for 10 days, then have a disciplinary hearing regarding long-term discipline (placing a kid on home-bound or moving to a longer period of out of school suspension or expulsion, altough in all school districts, expulsion is up to the school board, not the superintendent). State law up here does not allow for suspensions longer than 10 days without some kind of approval by the board or other circumstance. I’m guessing most states are the same.
So what happened in this case? The article says that she “recieved notice” that she was suspended for the remainder of the school year. The article makes it sound as though the family was not a part of the process, but previous articles stated that her family signed the discipline agreement and did not know they could appeal. Hum.
So are you of the opinion that the family agreed to 10 days, then it was extended to this homeschool on-line plan without their agreement? That seems to me to be unlkiely, but not impossible. An administrator does not need parent agreement to suspend a kid for up to 10 days. If they did, most kids would never be suspended!
If what you seem to believe is correct, she would have to have been dropped from her classes just past mid-term (they use a 4×4 block at LCHS), given F’s in those classes (or just dropped and NC (no count)), then given an on-line class through their on-line school. All without a parent’s signature and all behind her back? Again, unlikely, but not impossible. It would be world-class bad communication by the school, but, again, this is not impossible. Perhaps, the parent signed something that wasn’t read or explained clearly? That seems very likely.
And, again, this seems like a world-class overreaction to a paring knife. So this just isn’t adding up. There has got to be more here than meets the eye, especially in light of the district asking for a release.
As knowing nothing about the kid, I think we are all in the same boat on that charge! Making-up facts? I have no facts. Just assumptions. And, for the sake of the kid, I hope this is, indeed, a massive over-reaction and she gets back in.
“To offer some insider info, it is typical to innitially suspend a kid for 10 days, then have a disciplinary hearing regarding long-term discipline.”
Okay, where was that disciplinary hearing? It’s been two months (as the school convieniently pointed out in their complaint that the parents and student are now bringing this horrid situation to the attention of the media). Or did they decide to hold that behind closed doors too and not bother to inform the so-called perpetrator of the crime and her family, instead just piling more unfounded charges on top of unfounded charges?
Looking more and more like Gestapo tactics here. The school district is eventually going to find themselves on the losing end of a major lawsuit here based on everything that has come to light.
Oh. Found this too, from http://www.wral.com/news/education/story/8860447/
The district blames the media for hyping the story, not that the media would ever do something like that.
But there was this relevant passage:
“A disciplinary contract signed last month by Smithwick, her mother, Southern Lee High Principal Bonnie Almond and Moss states, however, that Smithwick cannot “physically access SLHS campus for the remainder of the 2010-2011 school year.”
Humm. Did the district forge the signature? Possible. Unlikely, but possible. It also said she played basketball too, which hasn’t come out in any other story. And now the mom is hedging on signing the release (good for her!).
I’m more skeptical than ever. There is more to this story than meets the eye, folks.
And what exactly was the circumstances of the signing of that so-called contract? “If you refuse to sign this, or bring this out before the media and general public, we will have your daughter charged with a violent crime and locked up and then where will her academic life be, hmmm?”
I wouldn’t put it beyond the superintendant to pull something like that. He’s already made veiled threats against the student and her family following the recent “pubic meeting” regarding this matter.
You’re right, there is more to this story then meets the eye, but so far with every revelation it looks worse and worse for the scool/superintendant.
I was going to say that it’s looking worse and worse for the family!
“The contract also calls for her to complete her English and pre-calculus classes through an online program offered by Southern Lee High and the rest of her classes at Central Carolina Community College through an agreement between the high school and the college.”
If this was a first offense and a great kid, it’s a pretty raw deal, but I can’t immagine a parent agreeing if that is the case. If there is more to this (stuff that we don’t know), then it’s quite a deal, basically ammounting to early graudation and the kid taking college classes on the school’s dime. And, yes, those classes would count for college credit. The down side is that the kid can’t be on campus, which means no basketball, soccer, prom, graudation ceremomy and so on. All of the fun stuff.
As far as the terms of the signing of the disciplinary agreement, I think it’s quite foolish to state that the school would “have the girl charged with a crime”. Schools simply cannot “have someone” charged with a crime. What most likely happened is that the item was found, the kid was suspended, a meeting with mom and dad was held prior to reienstatement and, at that meeting, this plan was decided. Now the parents are pissed (maybe because they didn’t understand that their kid couldn’t come to school at all, which would piss me off too). Why the DA sent a summons for weapons possession is still a mystery to me.
This is looking more and more like really bad communication on the part of the district and the parents, combining a stuborn superintendent with parents who are not very savvy when negotiating the policies of the school. The parents go to the media, and it explodes. The district gets defensive and says “let us release the records”, which is clearly a trap. The parents say, sure, but then waffle, responding with the claim that they “never wanted the media attention for their daughter’s situation. They only wanted to resolve the matter with school officials.”
“I do feel it is my responsibility to protect her and salvage some sort of future that she could have” mom says in response to not releasing records. Well, mom, splashing her situation all over the media is probabally not the very best way of protecting the kid. But stories like this take on a life of their own, of course, and mom can’t really be blamed.
So the parents are trying to put pandora back in the box while the district is doubling down. Meanwhile conservatives like us are arguing this story ad nausium and the kid is caught in the middle with the horrible prospect of her entire academic, discipline and attendence records being released.
Over a paring knife? There has to be more here than meets the eye. If not, this is an epic tragedy for the kid.
#10. westerncanadian: “A paring knife is only a weapon if carried by some twisted mean SOB. Does the school principal regard all his students as twisted mean SOBs?”
He probably judges others by looking at himself.
Records were released. Not a great kid. Not a horrible kid, but not a great kid. Suspended in 2009 for pushing another kid.
“The records show she had been in trouble before, even previously suspended when school officials said she admitted to pushing another student” according to the story linked on instapundit.
So, perhaps we can stop this stuff about “model student, star athlete”. It just isn’t accurate.
The author of the above piece even wrote in the above article “Not only has Smithwick never been in trouble before…”.
This is simply not true.
The author was taking the word of the mother and made a mistake. Mistakes happen, but a correction should be offered. It is the responsible thing to do.
None of this is to say she deserved what basically ammounted to an expulsion. That’s a different argument, and I still think there is much more to this than meets the eye.
But, please correct the record.