A seven-year-old Boston boy finds himself accused of sexual harassment for doing something boys have been doing as long as there have been boys: He kicked a bully in the crotch.
The first grader’s mother, Tasha Lynch, says she was shocked by the school’s decision.
“He’s 7 years old. He doesn’t know anything about sexual harassment,” she said.
Lynch’s son, Mark Curran, said the boy that he kicked had been bullying him on the school bus ride home from Tynan Elementary last week.
So bullying is bad, but defending yourself from a bully is worse. Noted.
Far less than a million years ago, I dealt with a bully via a punch in the face. A teacher not responsible for the classroom in which I defended myself later congratulated me for the act, which had the effect of telling me that I’d done some growing up that day. I won’t name that teacher, lest he be hunted down and punished retroactively. I’m sure this blog will go on my permanent record now.
A nine-year-old North Carolina boy finds himself accused of sexual harassment for saying that a teacher of his is “cute.”
A Gastonia mother says her son was suspended for calling a teacher “cute.”
Chiquita Lockett said her 9-year-old son, Emanyea, spent the last two days at home.
Lockett said the principal of Brookside Elementary called her Wednesday to say the incident was a form of “sexual harassment.”
Emanyea told Eyewitness News a substitute teacher overheard him tell another student a teacher was cute.
Then he was suspended.
Far less than a million years ago, one of my teachers was a former Miss Arkansas or something. “Cute” didn’t get within a mile of doing her justice. She never behaved in anything other than a professional manner that I ever saw, but every boy in that school would have been suspended under the current educrat regime.
And what happens when incompetence is finally found out in an American public school of the late republic period? Let’s visit Philadelphia, where a school super did a poor job but still established her hold up in the 1%.
Former Philly schools Superintendent Arlene Ackerman, who was paid that queen’s ransom to leave the city, applied for unemployment benefits this month.
The school district – which agreed in her August separation agreement not to fight any unemployment claims filed by Ackerman – confirmed her application yesterday.
Dean Weitzman, Ackerman’s attorney, noted that she is legally entitled to the money. He also pointed to her past charitable giving, including donating her entire final year of salary back to the district.
“If you’re a millionaire and you drop $12,000 on the ground, are you wealthy enough that you don’t want to reach down and pick it up?” Weitzman said.
“For all I know, she’s going to contribute those funds to a charitable cause.”
More likely, she’ll keep them. And the lawyer will get his cut. Why are we paying school administrators so much money, especially in a time of national austerity?
When our educators lack common sense and morality, what sort of education are they capable of imparting to their charges — our children?