# Zero tolerance in schools-good or bad?



## frank raud (Jun 2, 2006)

This is a spin-off from the self defense in schools thread. Most school boards have a zero tolerance for violence policy. This includes fighting back. If you are attacked/assaulted, and fight back, you get suspended. I think this is a knee-jerk reaction to some unfortunate situations involving extreme violence in certain schools. I don't believe the overall effects of this policy have been considered.

Young kids, and high school teenagers will do stupid things that a more mature and responsible adult will not. In an ideal world, every one would respect every one else's property and bodies. We don't live in an ideal world. No matter what we teach them, we know that some boy will grab some girls breast, perhaps to impress his friends. If the girls hits the offending boy, she gets suspended. If the girl does not have the right to defend herself, she becomes a victim, and is subtlely taught that it is OK for her to be violated.
This contradicts the idea of empowerment that we are supposed to be teaching our children.  


Thoughts?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 2, 2006)

Most schools only punish for the blows that fall.  They don't take into account the escalation.  This is where people fall through the cracks with no-tolerance policies.  Violence in schools is rarely one on one or two on two, it resembles a web and the causes of fights are complex.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Jun 2, 2006)

frank raud said:
			
		

> This is a spin-off from the self defense in schools thread. Most school boards have a zero tolerance for violence policy. This includes fighting back. If you are attacked/assaulted, and fight back, you get suspended. I think this is a knee-jerk reaction to some unfortunate situations involving extreme violence in certain schools. I don't believe the overall effects of this policy have been considered.
> 
> Young kids, and high school teenagers will do stupid things that a more mature and responsible adult will not. In an ideal world, every one would respect every one else's property and bodies. We don't live in an ideal world. No matter what we teach them, we know that some boy will grab some girls breast, perhaps to impress his friends. If the girls hits the offending boy, she gets suspended. If the girl does not have the right to defend herself, she becomes a victim, and is subtlely taught that it is OK for her to be violated.
> This contradicts the idea of empowerment that we are supposed to be teaching our children.
> ...


 
Thoughts? 

I agree with you entirely and it is a point of great frustration to me that school administrators, while recognizing _their *own* personal rights to self-defence, _ignore the rights of students who are the victims of UPROVOKED aggression. Good thread.

Lest others think that my scenario of the "unprovoked assault" is contrived; I assure you I lived it during the majority of my high school and junior high school years. It sucks, and I lost all respect for persons in authority who took the path of least resistance and held all responsible for any incident regardless of culpability.

Great thread! You ask great questions.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Jun 2, 2006)

What has happened to discernement and common sense? Zero-tolerance _can_ work for drug use and bullying...but c'mon...my high-school daughter cannot bring Advil to school for a headache..she is an honors student. She has never been in any trouble and her teachers know her. To suspend her for bringing Advil to school (this hasn't happened because she doesn't bring it due to the zero-tolerance policy) is ridiculous. 

My son dealt with bullies before we moved. He is a special ed student. A great kid who gets along with everyone. His teachers know him. To suspend him for defending himself against a bully...a child whom teachers know has a history of bullying...is ridiculous.

Zero-tolerance in theory is a good idea. You get busted with drugs..you're suspended...no second chances. You bring a weapon to school...you're suspended. You assault someone...you're suspended. BUT it needs to be balanced with common sense to truly be effective, otherwise the innocent are punished along with the guilty.


----------



## Kreth (Jun 2, 2006)

Jade Tigress said:
			
		

> Zero-tolerance in theory is a good idea. You get busted with drugs..you're suspended...no second chances. You bring a weapon to school...you're suspended. You assault someone...you're suspended. BUT it needs to be balanced with common sense to truly be effective, otherwise the innocent are punished along with the guilty.


I remember reading a story a while back where a student was suspended for pointing a chicken nugget at a friend and saying, "Bang!" In theory, zero-tolerance works, but the implementation often leaves a lot to be desired.


----------



## bydand (Jun 2, 2006)

Wow, how timely!  My oldest son (8 years old) had a little altercation this week at recess, and I had a meeting with his principal this morning about this very subject.  The school has a zero tolerance policy about violence in school, but also has the common sense to realize that there has to be a definition between "violence" and "self-defense."  The kid who smacked him in the side of the face, was punished; my son, for knocking him on his butt and going to an aide, wasn't even talked too about his actions.  I talked to the principal to let him know I appreciated the schools stand and follow-through. I have always told my school age children: "walking or running away are the best thing to do, BUT if that isn't an option;  stand up for yourself and  fight until there is no more threat, Daddy will back you up and while you may get in trouble in school, you won't at home."  They also KNOW that if they pick a fight, the trouble at school will pale to the trouble at home.  LOL  it worked on me and it seems to be working for my kids.

So, I guess that I would agree with a zero-tolerance policy, as long as they are administered with a bit of brains and forethought.


----------



## Grenadier (Jun 2, 2006)

"Zero tolerance" in a school system can work, BUT...

It must be administered with several grains of salt.  To adopt a uniform code that automatically suspends (or even expels) someone for something completely harmless is just plain silly.  Furthermore, the application of such a policy should be geared towards genuine troublemakers, and allow for legitimate, justified self-defense.  I guess that when you add in all of these exceptions that I propose, then it's really not a "zero tolerance" policy, but rather one of a "strict guidelines with reasonable exceptions" policy.  

There are many, many examples of "zero tolerance" gone awry.  The suspension of a student for possessing an ibuprofen tablet, the suspension of an Eagle Scout who had left a small camping hatchet in the trunk of his car, the suspension of a student who had a small plastic sword in his lunch box (to hold the sandwich together), or even the suspension of a student on grounds of knife possession simply because she had a plastic knife in her lunch bag to spread peanut butter.  

Sometimes, I wonder why some school boards use this policy to discipline the above students in such a manner, while refusing to crack down on the true bad apples in the school system, such as drug dealers, gang bangers, etc.  Maybe they're afraid of backlash (from the criminal element or from the public that might perceive these thugs as "good kids").  Maybe they just want to (improperly) flex their muscles.  Whatever the reasons, these boards are going to have to one day wake up and realize that punishing the folks who don't cause trouble isn't going to make the criminal element disappear.


----------



## Kensai (Jun 2, 2006)

Grenadier said:
			
		

> "Zero tolerance" in a school system can work, BUT...
> 
> It must be administered with several grains of salt. To adopt a uniform code that automatically suspends (or even expels) someone for something completely harmless is just plain silly. Furthermore, the application of such a policy should be geared towards genuine troublemakers, and allow for legitimate, justified self-defense. I guess that when you add in all of these exceptions that I propose, then it's really not a "zero tolerance" policy, but rather one of a "strict guidelines with reasonable exceptions" policy.
> 
> ...


 
Damn... Beat me to the punch. Totally agree. The application of laws and rules must be used in conjunction with "common sense". I know it's a much maligned concept in this era of political correctness, but I find it generally is the best approach.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Jun 2, 2006)

Grenadier said:
			
		

> "Sometimes, I wonder why some school boards use this policy to discipline the above students in such a manner, while refusing to crack down on the true bad apples in the school system, such as drug dealers, gang bangers, etc. Maybe they're afraid of backlash (from the criminal element or from the public that might perceive these thugs as "good kids"). Maybe they just want to (improperly) flex their muscles. Whatever the reasons, these boards are going to have to one day wake up and realize that punishing the folks who don't cause trouble isn't going to make the criminal element disappear.


 
Great point - I think often, it *IS* a control issue. Also, it is easier to discipline a good student who won't cause you any problems than it is to discipline a "problem student" whose parents will get in you face if you so much as reprimand their "precious". Sometimes, I think school administrators pick an easy target to make an example of in the hopes that others they are more reticent to tackle will "get the message". That is NOT an attitude I respect.


----------



## matt.m (Jun 2, 2006)

You know, I am in my 30's so I will chime in like the rest of you old rusty folks.  Dad told me the following:
Don't start a fight, I will kill you when you get home
If you have to fight, make sure everyone sees the other person start it
Punch until the other won't get up
If you get into trouble for defending yourself I don't care, I am behind you.

I got suspended and detention in high school for fighting.  I never started it, so I didn't care.  I knew my fathers approval was the most important anyway.  So I believe it is up to the parent to support their child and let them know that it is all good if they have to defend themselves.

Proper nuturing brings about a stable mind.


----------



## frank raud (Jun 2, 2006)

Zero tolerance allows bureaucrats to hide behind the policy. examples have been given of aspirin not being allowed on schol grounds. Is that the real reason for zero tolerance on drugs? Or the fact that no one is qualified to test the pills and liquids that many of us take on a normal day.

If a kid is selling pills at $5 a pop, pretty sure that's illegal drugs. if a pill has Bayer stamped on it, probably isn't.Zero tolerance removes the requirement for common sense.

It seems odd to me, that it appears more common now that a student is unjustly suspended or charged with a zero tolerance offence, than the previous situation where the teachers and principals had some leeway. When I went to school, the good students didn't get in trouble.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Jun 2, 2006)

frank raud said:
			
		

> When I went to school, the good students didn't get in trouble.



Unfortunately the same can't always be said for now.


----------



## Kensai (Jun 2, 2006)

Perhaps if we hadn't inherited such a bloody awful compensation culture, schools wouldn't be afraid/breaking any laws in administering mild pain killers etc? I truly believe that that is a >< part of the problem. That and nannyism. Makes my blood boil, and for a caaaalm....relaaaaxed guy like me, that says a lot.


----------



## MJS (Jun 2, 2006)

frank raud said:
			
		

> This is a spin-off from the self defense in schools thread. Most school boards have a zero tolerance for violence policy. This includes fighting back. If you are attacked/assaulted, and fight back, you get suspended. I think this is a knee-jerk reaction to some unfortunate situations involving extreme violence in certain schools. I don't believe the overall effects of this policy have been considered.
> 
> Young kids, and high school teenagers will do stupid things that a more mature and responsible adult will not. In an ideal world, every one would respect every one else's property and bodies. We don't live in an ideal world. No matter what we teach them, we know that some boy will grab some girls breast, perhaps to impress his friends. If the girls hits the offending boy, she gets suspended. If the girl does not have the right to defend herself, she becomes a victim, and is subtlely taught that it is OK for her to be violated.
> This contradicts the idea of empowerment that we are supposed to be teaching our children.
> ...


 
Yes, do you bring up some very good points.  There seems to be no happy medium.  Personally, I feel that if someone is being assaulted, touched, etc. then IMO, they should have the right to defend themselves within reason of course.  I don't feel that kids should have to go to school and be harrassed on a daily basis.  They're there to learn and its the schools job to provide a safe, productive learning environment for the kids.

Mike


----------



## Dark (Jun 2, 2006)

frank raud said:
			
		

> This is a spin-off from the self defense in schools thread. Most school boards have a zero tolerance for violence policy. This includes fighting back. If you are attacked/assaulted, and fight back, you get suspended. I think this is a knee-jerk reaction to some unfortunate situations involving extreme violence in certain schools. I don't believe the overall effects of this policy have been considered.
> 
> Thoughts?


 
   Simple idea, teach your kids to be victems. That way politions, cops and criminal can abuse and control them. The American Spirit dies...

   Teach your kids to protect themselves and thier right to live and they are just as bad as the bullies because they could just accepted being a victem. Funny ain't it... This why I'm moving to a new country...


----------



## Henderson (Jun 2, 2006)

*Zero tolerance policies create more victims.* The kids that start trouble do NOT care about suspensions, detentions, and expulsions. They wear them like a badge of honor. Believe me, I know.

My daughters are only 9 yrs old, but they already know...don't start the fight, but feel free to end it. They also know they have my full support if they feel the need to defend someone less capable than themselves.

Most side comments about this subject are coming from parents, or people who were themselves victimized while in school. I was the bully. Not proud of it, but it is my past and is a part of me. Nothing I can do about it. It's made me a better person now.

I say kick the bully's *** when he deserves it, and let the good kids alone! If we tell kids to not fight back, we might as well say that they are not worth fighting for.

Just my $.02

Respects,

Frank


----------



## frank raud (Jun 2, 2006)

Just showing I'm an old man, when I was a kid, if I got out of line, an adult had no problem correcting me, this would include a quick swat sometimes, followed by a phone call to my parents, or being marched up to my parents, and having to tell them what I did. 

Now, no one will get involved with a kid doing something wrong, for fear of being arrested for doing something with a minor. Kids know it, they threaten to call the cops if anyone speaks to them in a tone they don't like. I think most people would freak today if a neighbour, or a STRANGER, was walking up their driveway, dragging their son by the ear.


----------



## Brother John (Jun 2, 2006)

It depends entirely on specific policies.
IF they suspend due to self-defense.....then it's Wrong.
IF the teachers can't control and accurately monitor what's going on, then they are at the WRONG student to teacher ratio.

....then we fall back to issues of funding no doubt.

LOTS need corrected.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Lisa (Jun 2, 2006)

Interesting topic for me as I am dealing with this very issue.

My daughter came home telling me of an altercation she was involved in.

According to the Vice Principal, my daughter and two of her friends tried to pull a known bully off of another child who was being beaten up.  There were no teachers around at the time.  The "bully" proceeded to spit in my daughters face at which time, in reaction to being spit on, she smacked him on the face.  He then spat on her two friends and elbowed one in the face.

The Vice Principal told me he would be calling her into the office to speak with her on Monday.  I guess we will see how far their no violence policy goes and will find out if she gets suspended for slapping the kid in retaliation for him spitting on her.

If she gets suspended, I think that would be a tragedy.  I have no problem with what she did.  Actually, I am quite proud of her for trying to defend one of her friends.


----------



## Henderson (Jun 2, 2006)

Lisa said:
			
		

> Interesting topic for me as I am dealing with this very issue.
> 
> My daughter came home telling me of an altercation she was involved in.
> 
> ...


 
Lisa,  Your daughter is to be applauded.  I am sure you are already very proud of her.  As the father of two girls, I am proud of her myself.

Respects,

Frank


----------



## Lisa (Jun 2, 2006)

Henderson said:
			
		

> Lisa,  Your daughter is to be applauded.  I am sure you are already very proud of her.  As the father of two girls, I am proud of her myself.
> 
> Respects,
> 
> Frank



Thank you, Frank.  Her dad and I are very proud of her.  

It will be a difficult thing to explain to her how doing the right thing results in a suspension.  It will be a good lesson to learn that although there is policy to protect everyone and it has to be abided by, sometimes the policy hurts those with good intentions.  I will also encourage her to do exactly the same thing next time.  Don't go looking for trouble but make sure you stick up for what you believe in and help your friends out when they are in trouble.

Her words were "I just couldn't sit there until an adult came along and watch something so wrong continue."


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 2, 2006)

Lisa said:
			
		

> Thank you, Frank. Her dad and I are very proud of her.
> 
> It will be a difficult thing to explain to her how doing the right thing results in a suspension. It will be a good lesson to learn that although there is policy to protect everyone and it has to be abided by, sometimes the policy hurts those with good intentions. I will also encourage her to do exactly the same thing next time. Don't go looking for trouble but make sure you stick up for what you believe in and help your friends out when they are in trouble.
> 
> Her words were "I just couldn't sit there until an adult came along and watch something so wrong continue."


 
I was involved in a similar situation with a similar outcome in High School.  My dad told me to Follow My Heart and Speak Truth to Power.  I thought this was good advice and I've been following it ever since.

And my kids will hear the same advice.


----------



## Kacey (Jun 2, 2006)

One of my former TKD students was being taunted by a bully - the bully called him names, called his younger brother names, called his mother names... anything he could think of to make my student take the first swing (and therefore get in the most trouble).  My student (who had a very short fuse at the time) stood there and took it... until the bully tried to punch him.  My student stood there and blocked for several minutes until a teacher showed up, and never once punched back, or kicked... although the blocks were hard enough to cause bruises.  They were *both* suspended for 3 days for being in a fight.  However, I felt my student performed correctly, and bought him lunch; his mother bought him a pair of boots he'd been coveting.

The thing to remember, as you talk about zero tolerance being a new thing, is that this happened nearly 15 years ago.  It is not new - it is just that people are just now becoming aware of it.

Do I agree with a zero-*violence* policy?  Well... define violence.  We had a behavior modification program in place at the school where I teach that aimed at stopping violence before it started, by stopping the behaviors that led to physical violence.  The thing is, it defined violence very broadly - to the point that rolling your eyes at a teacher was considered violence, along with a long list of other activities.  Yes, there were "levels" of violence, and rolling your eyes generally just got you told to stop... unless you didn't, in which case the teacher could call it defiance, which was, of course, a higher level of violence, and the consequences then got more severe.

My point, I guess, is that any blanket policy, no matter how well-meaning, can be spread out to the point that it no longer performs as it was intended to perform.  The key is knowing where to draw the line.


----------



## bydand (Jun 2, 2006)

Lisa said:
			
		

> Her words were "I just couldn't sit there until an adult came along and watch something so wrong continue."



Your daughter sounds like a remarkable young person.


----------



## MJS (Jun 2, 2006)

Lisa said:
			
		

> Interesting topic for me as I am dealing with this very issue.
> 
> My daughter came home telling me of an altercation she was involved in.
> 
> ...


 
Good for your daughter!!  IMHO, I saw nothing wrong with what she did!  I agree that it would be awful if she got suspended.  It'll be interesting to see what happens.  

Mike


----------



## Dark (Jun 3, 2006)

Reading over this I was thinking of when I was high school, this kid swung at me and I stepped back then he swung again and advanced forward. I side stepped and duck spun to his rear and he was still punching, I had my hand cocked to deliver a shuto to the shoulder but couldn't do it because he was just punching wildly at thin air. lol

I got suspended because the kid swung at me... So I looked at the principle and said "**** it I'm guilty anyway, and broke the kids nose in the principles office." My mom actually threatened to sue the school for punishing me without cause until I broke the kid's nose... I personally thought I made a point, the funny part was I didn't get suspended for the punch to the nose because they said it was rewarding me.

Suspended for being the victem and not punished for deliberately hitting someone... Go figure... If I ever get childs I'm home schooling them...


----------



## pstarr (Jun 3, 2006)

Years ago when I worked for the Sheriff's Dept., my little boy got into a tiff on the school bus.  He was attacked by an older boy who didn't like him just because he was new to the area (we'd just moved into this hick-filled area a short time earlier) and he defended himself.

     The school's superintendent invited my wife and me to a meeting and said that he planned to suspend my son.  I told him that that would seem to indicate that he subsidizes bullying.  After all, if a child is attacked, shouldn't he have the right to defend himself?  The superintendent said "no."

     At that point, I asked, "So if I came across this table right now and punch your teeth out...which I might very well do, you aren't allowed to defend yourself...is that right?"  And I stood up.
     The poor jerk turned pale and began stammering, backing away from me.

     And I told him that I thought I'd made my point- and my son wasn't suspended.

     I think children have the right to defend themselves and should be taught how to do it.  Otherwise, we'll end up with a generation of wimps who're afraid (for one reason or another) to stand up for themselves and their rights.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Jun 3, 2006)

Lisa said:
			
		

> Interesting topic for me as I am dealing with this very issue.


You are doing a fantastic job raising your daughter. I am so proud of her for you too. Great kid and it would be an absolute injustice if she's suspended. 



			
				pstarr said:
			
		

> Years ago when I worked for the Sheriff's Dept., my little boy got into a tiff on the school bus. He was attacked by an older boy who didn't like him just because he was new to the area (we'd just moved into this hick-filled area a short time earlier) and he defended himself.
> 
> The school's superintendent invited my wife and me to a meeting and said that he planned to suspend my son. I told him that that would seem to indicate that he subsidizes bullying. After all, if a child is attacked, shouldn't he have the right to defend himself? The superintendent said "no."
> 
> ...


LOL...I love the way you handled that.  



> I think children have the right to defend themselves and should be taught how to do it. Otherwise, we'll end up with a generation of wimps who're afraid (for one reason or another) to stand up for themselves and their rights.


So true. And, kids who fight back..who stand up to bullying...can help to eliminate the problem of bullying. Bullies don't keep bullying people who won't take it. 



			
				Dark said:
			
		

> Reading over this I was thinking of when I was high school, this kid swung at me and I stepped back then he swung again and advanced forward. I side stepped and duck spun to his rear and he was still punching, I had my hand cocked to deliver a shuto to the shoulder but couldn't do it because he was just punching wildly at thin air. lol
> 
> I got suspended because the kid swung at me... So I looked at the principle and said "**** it I'm guilty anyway, and broke the kids nose in the principles office." My mom actually threatened to sue the school for punishing me without cause until I broke the kid's nose... I personally thought I made a point, the funny part was I didn't get suspended for the punch to the nose because they said it was rewarding me.
> 
> Suspended for being the victem and not punished for deliberately hitting someone... Go figure... If I ever get childs I'm home schooling them...


Yep, this is the kind of assinine stuff that happens when common sense is not used.


----------



## Explorer (Jun 5, 2006)

We've been through the same thing with our oldest son.  He'd always been big and strong and taught by his teachers not to fight back.  The only problem was he was also very smart ... and talkative.  This kid used to read the encyclopedia for fun!  He had 'target' written all over him.

After one kid stuck a finger in his eye and dragged it down his face, causing a scratch from the eyeball down his cheek ... I'd had it and told him to stop anyone who tries to hurt him.  He did a pretty good job until junoir high, where boys get very, very touch oriented ... y'know dominance behavior.  When 5 boys took turns kicking the crap out of his legs ... I went into the principal -- one more time -- and simply told him I was done (none of the boys were punished because no teacher actually saw the fight) the school had never even given one of his tormentors an in school suspension.  I called my lawyer and informed him I planned to sue the school, the district, the principal, vice principal and everyone else involved ... my plan was to own the school, the school district and everyone of those amateurs homes.  My lawyer said fine, but he couldn't represent me because he was the school districts lawyer!  Harry did say he'd talk to the principal and the district superintendant.  We then filed charges against the principle perpitrator.

I got a call back that stated my son was allowed to defend himself if attacked.  It took about 3 or 4 confrontations with the bullies and a couple of bruises ... but the nonsense stopped.  Now my son is 22 and plays Division 1 Rugby for the University of Minnesota -- ranked in the top 20 nationally.

We're pretty happy with the results.


----------



## trueaspirer (Jun 5, 2006)

Its sick - in today's society we are teaching that *crime pays*. Believe it. Those who are good, and try to defend themselves, end up in trouble. A bully in school, who started the fight, the most he'll get is couseling, because their must be some *other* reason why he started the fight, like a problem at home, so he is not accountable. Unlike that horrible kid back there who actually tried to defend himself. Yeah. Were gonna expel him. You see this everywhere, ont just in school. Take NYC for example. There, carrying weapons is illegal. Therefore, the good, law abiding citizens, who wont carry the weapon will be assaulted by the mugger, raper, murderer, etc, who doesn't care whats illegal and will have the weapon. And if the victim does have a weapon and tries to defend his/herself, they will probably end up in serious trouble for "unncessary violence". Sick stuff. It's all over today. Something needs to be done. Yeah right...who am I kidding...


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 8, 2006)

*BAAAAAAAAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *

it is the worst possible thing. because of that, even if your life, or innocence, is on the line, you'll get in trouble.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 8, 2006)

frank raud said:
			
		

> This is a spin-off from the self defense in schools thread. Most school boards have a zero tolerance for violence policy. This includes fighting back. If you are attacked/assaulted, and fight back, you get suspended. I think this is a knee-jerk reaction to some unfortunate situations involving extreme violence in certain schools. I don't believe the overall effects of this policy have been considered.
> 
> Young kids, and high school teenagers will do stupid things that a more mature and responsible adult will not. In an ideal world, every one would respect every one else's property and bodies. We don't live in an ideal world. No matter what we teach them, we know that some boy will grab some girls breast, perhaps to impress his friends. If the girls hits the offending boy, she gets suspended. If the girl does not have the right to defend herself, she becomes a victim, and is subtlely taught that it is OK for her to be violated.
> This contradicts the idea of empowerment that we are supposed to be teaching our children.
> ...


 
Acctuly these things normally are taken into consideration. So why do they do it anyways? 3 simple reasons:
1). The people in charge of schools don't count students as reliable witnesses. Thus, they can only take the story of teachers and the first one to report it. Which is normally the story of the attacker getting counterattacked.

2). The people in charge of schools don't acctuly care about the students. Many teachers work in schools for one of three reasons:
a. Health benefents.
b. It's easy.
c. The teachers unions have it set up so that members more-or-less cann't fired for anything. Even sending sexual e-mails to students that are very underage

3). Part of the point of the zero tolernce policy is to teach students that they are *NOT *allowed to do anything to protect themselves, because they are not worthy of there own safety.

The entire point is TOO teach kidds that they are inferior. And beacuse of some school trends, policys, and imcompent teachers American students are massivly behind on international standardized tests. Stuff like this is an example of the crapp that students have to deal with.


----------



## tradrockrat (Jun 8, 2006)

CuongNhuka said:
			
		

> Acctuly these things normally are taken into consideration. So why do they do it anyways? 3 simple reasons:
> 1). The people in charge of schools don't count students as reliable witnesses. Thus, they can only take the story of teachers and the first one to report it. Which is normally the story of the attacker getting counterattacked.
> 
> 2). The people in charge of schools don't acctuly care about the students. Many teachers work in schools for one of three reasons:
> ...


 
just a quick post - I'm not intersted in an argument here, but please realize that yes, bad things do happen in schools, and yes there have been and will be future abuses of power in schools, but they are exceptions to the rule - not the everyday reality across the country.  There are a few of us on this site that are teachers and some might take offense to your genrealizations and aspersions upon our character.

Daily I watch hard working, dilligent men and women struggle to create an atmosphere of caring and concern to teach and develop young men and women into successful individuals.  And they do this quietly, without fanfare, watching teachers get mentioned in the news only when something bad happens.  

Teaching is not easy - it's the hardest job I've ever held.

Zero tolerance is in place to reduce violence by assuring consequences to any that are involved in it.  Do I agree with zero tolerance?  The concept is great, the execution is tremendously flawed.  The concept - since you seemed to have not grasped it - is to create a safe environment for ALL students.  Unfortunately - this doesn't work in real life.  As far as self esteem of the student goes - that is our number one priority at my school - build self esteem and instill pride in their life.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 8, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> Thoughts?
> 
> I agree with you entirely and it is a point of great frustration to me that school administrators, while recognizing _their *own* personal rights to self-defence, _ignore the rights of students who are the victims of UPROVOKED aggression. Good thread.
> 
> ...


 
I've been through the same kind of thing. here's the whole senario:
Mrs. Matney (vice principal): Why do think Rodney stole you sun glasses? He's a good kid he wouldn't do that!! 
Me: Because he's stolen form me before...
Mrs. Matney: But that doesn't matter, the past has no affect on the present.
Me: If you would let me finish. He is also the only the person I have in both second and ninth hour. If he doesn't want me to call him a theif then he should explain that!!!
Mrs. Matney: Well, Rodney can you?
Rodney: *shruggs and shakes head* No. But he kicked my freind in the stomach last month.
Mrs. Matney: Rodney, why don'e you get back to class. I need to have a private talk with Mr. Robst (my last name) about the ethics of unprovoked violence
Rodney: *smiles widely, throws me a dirty look and leaves*
Mrs. Matney: well
Me: He forgot a part. 
Mrs Matney: Sure, right *sarcasim*
Me: His frind grabbed my -Blank-. Then I turned around and kick as hard as I could to get him to back off. Then him and a dozen of his freinds started to circle me while THREATING TO *KILL* ME!!!!
Mrs. Matney: Why didn't you report it? 
Me: Because you're not going to do anything, no matter what.

Long story short, she insults me, tells me to fill out an incedent report, and promises to get the guy in trouble. This was about in September. Now school is out, and I was proven right. She also threated to expel me for defending the inocence of my left butt cheek.
And all the counclers, administartors, and teachers wonder why I don't trust them. after that and dozen OTHER times they tried to expel me for either defendeing myself, nerely needing to, or haveing someone threating to kill me in front of a teacher that does nothing, or the year long mental torcher they made me endure at the expelled school last year i should really trust them all, shouldn't I


----------



## tradrockrat (Jun 8, 2006)

guess I ought to post about zero tolerance a little, huh?   

I've been known to have conversations with students who have issues with bullies and yet the school doesn't seem to be able to solve the problem.  I usually set up a "sting" opperation with them to catch the bully.  At that point, staff has caught the perp in the act of verbal / physical /mental abuse and whammo!  In school suspension or worse.

Entrapment?  you bettcha.  But it is effective, and the real culpret recieves just consequences for his/ her actions.  The best part is, they never know about the sting, so the student doesn't have to worry about retribution.

In real life, the problem with zero tolerance is that it rarley gets applied to anything more than outright fights.  So teasing, threats and verbal abuse gets ignored.

Of course there is that opposite extremewhere the student who says, "I wanna kill you!" gets suspended...


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 8, 2006)

Jade Tigress said:
			
		

> Zero-tolerance in theory is a good idea. You get busted with drugs..you're suspended...no second chances. You bring a weapon to school...you're suspended. You assault someone...you're suspended. BUT it needs to be balanced with common sense to truly be effective, otherwise the innocent are punished along with the guilty.


 
The twisted thing is, the zero tolernce  policy is really only applied to violence. I have walked in on god nows how people having sex in the bathrooms, selling drugs, dry humping in the halls, or smoking pot. 
You are right, it is a good THEORY, but it doesn't work in reality. Mostly because it is applied wrong, or the people in charge don't really do what they are supposed to do. It's Communism. Bad annology, I know, but you get the point.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 8, 2006)

Grenadier said:
			
		

> or even the suspension of a student on grounds of knife possession simply because she had a plastic knife in her lunch bag to spread peanut butter.


 
the truely ironic thing, those are the knives that are given out at lunch



			
				Grenadier said:
			
		

> Sometimes, I wonder why some school boards use this policy to discipline the above students in such a manner, while refusing to crack down on the true bad apples in the school system, such as drug dealers, gang bangers, etc. Maybe they're afraid of backlash (from the criminal element or from the public that might perceive these thugs as "good kids"). Maybe they just want to (improperly) flex their muscles. Whatever the reasons, these boards are going to have to one day wake up and realize that punishing the folks who don't cause trouble isn't going to make the criminal element disappear.


 
and your right on all acounts.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 8, 2006)

Brother John said:
			
		

> ....then we fall back to issues of funding no doubt.
> 
> LOTS need corrected.


 
Schools don't need more funding. The Federal Gov. gives public schools $10,000 per student in the district. The funding problem is a myth. And it was started by the people in charge of public schools. The entire problem from horrible mismagange mant of funds. If they want more money, they should stop wasteing it.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 8, 2006)

Lisa said:
			
		

> Interesting topic for me as I am dealing with this very issue.
> 
> My daughter came home telling me of an altercation she was involved in.
> 
> ...


 
She did the right thing, and should be awarded, and of course just watch instead she is going to be suspended.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 8, 2006)

Kacey said:
			
		

> One of my former TKD students was being taunted by a bully - the bully called him names, called his younger brother names, called his mother names... anything he could think of to make my student take the first swing (and therefore get in the most trouble). My student (who had a very short fuse at the time) stood there and took it... until the bully tried to punch him. My student stood there and blocked for several minutes until a teacher showed up, and never once punched back, or kicked... although the blocks were hard enough to cause bruises. They were *both* suspended for 3 days for being in a fight.


 
If I could count the number of times that nerely happened to me. A recent one that shows similar...intelgence...is when I was nerely expeled for haveing my life threated outside a class room. Because even though a teacher saw it, he managed to b.s. his way into saying I threatened him!!!


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 8, 2006)

Dark said:
			
		

> the funny part was I didn't get suspended for the punch to the nose because they said it was rewarding me.


 
most kids DO look at suspension as a reward.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 8, 2006)

Explorer said:
			
		

> We've been through the same thing with our oldest son. He'd always been big and strong and taught by his teachers not to fight back. The only problem was he was also very smart ... and talkative. This kid used to read the encyclopedia for fun! He had 'target' written all over him.
> 
> After one kid stuck a finger in his eye and dragged it down his face, causing a scratch from the eyeball down his cheek ... I'd had it and told him to stop anyone who tries to hurt him. He did a pretty good job until junoir high, where boys get very, very touch oriented ... y'know dominance behavior. When 5 boys took turns kicking the crap out of his legs ... I went into the principal -- one more time -- and simply told him I was done (none of the boys were punished because no teacher actually saw the fight) the school had never even given one of his tormentors an in school suspension. I called my lawyer and informed him I planned to sue the school, the district, the principal, vice principal and everyone else involved ... my plan was to own the school, the school district and everyone of those amateurs homes. My lawyer said fine, but he couldn't represent me because he was the school districts lawyer! Harry did say he'd talk to the principal and the district superintendant. We then filed charges against the principle perpitrator.
> 
> ...


 
this is beatiful!!!!!!!! god bless you man!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 8, 2006)

tradrockrat said:
			
		

> just a quick post - I'm not intersted in an argument here, but please realize that yes, bad things do happen in schools, and yes there have been and will be future abuses of power in schools, but they are exceptions to the rule - not the everyday reality across the country. There are a few of us on this site that are teachers and some might take offense to your genrealizations and aspersions upon our character.
> 
> Daily I watch hard working, dilligent men and women struggle to create an atmosphere of caring and concern to teach and develop young men and women into successful individuals. And they do this quietly, without fanfare, watching teachers get mentioned in the news only when something bad happens.
> 
> ...


 
I know there are many great teachers out there. But thre are many more who seem to care little for students. I've even heard a teacher say he doesn't now what he is teaching in one of his classes. I have to agree since I was in that class. Anouther teacher said that her subject was probably the easiest to teach since all the work she really had to do was be a chapter or two ahead of the class. Which is why she is a teacher.
Anouther teacher of mine would get me in trouble if I particapated in class. Mostly since I was using simple logic, and she was not useing any. What kind of topics? This mostly, we cann't defnd ourselves. I replied, so if someone is trying to kill you, you're not going to do anything? Ganted my smart -blank- comments probably didn't help. Bt I had to have my life threatened by the people that went there every day. While teachers watched and did nothing. So...
I suppose you are right though, I did use some generalities that are somewhat hurtful. There are many good teachers who acctuly care about there students and the subject. But there are many more who seem to not care about anyone or anything other then themselves.


----------



## Lisa (Jun 8, 2006)

CuongNhuka said:
			
		

> She did the right thing, and should be awarded, and of course just watch instead she is going to be suspended.



Actually, no, she wasn't, thankfully.  I spoke with the principal who actually told me that he appreciated what she did in trying to get between the bully and the other student and that if she feels any reprecussions for her actions she is to tell him immediately.

If she was suspended, my husband and I were going to get her a tshirt to wear back to school:

*I was suspended 
and 
my parents were proud of me!

*we were figuring she would maybe last one class and then be sent home  ​


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 8, 2006)

Lisa said:
			
		

> Actually, no, she wasn't, thankfully. I spoke with the principal who actually told me that he appreciated what she did in trying to get between the bully and the other student and that if she feels any reprecussions for her actions she is to tell him immediately.
> 
> If she was suspended, my husband and I were going to get her a tshirt to wear back to school:
> 
> ...


 
thats both lucky and funny


----------



## Kacey (Jun 8, 2006)

CuongNhuka said:
			
		

> Schools don't need more funding. The Federal Gov. gives public schools $10,000 per student in the district. The funding problem is a myth. And it was started by the people in charge of public schools. The entire problem from horrible mismagange mant of funds. If they want more money, they should stop wasteing it.



Most school districts have less than that per student per year, from all sources - the median is more like $8000.

As a teacher, I have seen trends come and go - and I have seen too many like yourself who believe what the media tells them.  Are there bad teachers out there? Yes - just like there are bad police officers, store clerks, doctors, and everything else... but very few media outlets highlight the good members of any profession, because it doesn't sell advertising.



> 1). The people in charge of schools don't count students as reliable witnesses. Thus, they can only take the story of teachers and the first one to report it. Which is normally the story of the attacker getting counterattacked.



I don't know where you go/went to school, but students *are* considered reliable witnesses in the school where I teach, and have been for the 10 years I've been a teacher there.  The story I related occurred over 15 years ago, in a different district, right after the passage of a no-tolerance weapon law, which caused people to interpret similar ordinances more narrowly.  However, many student witnesses have been proven to reort events in a light that makes their friend look good, regardless of who started it - as with a case currently in the Denver news about a teen who knifed and killed another teen in school, and claimed it was self-defense, despite the other teen being unarmed - and all of the attacker's friends support his story, that he was in realistic fear for his life, and all the friends of the dead boy support the other side, that it was "just a fight".



> 2). The people in charge of schools don't acctuly care about the students. Many teachers work in schools for one of three reasons:



1.  Understanding the importance of the job.
2.  Wanting to do something that makes a difference for the future.
3.  Wanting to give back to the community.



> a. Health benefents.



Right... sure... I went to college for 6 years to get a BA and a teaching certificate because no other job would give me similar health benefits.  Somehow, I don't think so - especially since I had better benefits as a student than I do now.



> b. It's easy.



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.  That's a good joke!  Have you ever tried teaching a group of students like yourself, who think that they know everything, that the teacher knows nothing, and that they are only there because a parent says they have to be?  Maybe you should try it some time and see if it's easy - and not with your friends in the class, either.



> c. The teachers unions have it set up so that members more-or-less cann't fired for anything. Even sending sexual e-mails to students that are very underage



This is so untrue that it's laughable.  I was probationary for 3 years before my job became permanent - that meant that at any time, the district could say "thanks, but don't come back next year" - no reason necessary.  One of the reasons that the statistics for teacher firing and quitting are relatively low is because teachers in their first 3 years in a district (or up to 5 years, in some places) are considered temporary employees, and can be let go for no reason or any reason - and not qualify for so much unemployment, if they are let go at the end of an annual contract.  Also, a teacher who is fired for cause generally loses his/her licensure and thus cannot work as a teacher again.  That teachers cannot be fired because of the union is a common misconception perpetuated by people who read it somewhere and take it as the truth because they saw it in print.  And yes, I do know teachers who were fired for cause, and yes, I was non-renewed - twice, in fact, before I started my current job - and neither time was due to my performance; one was because the charter school was closed and all the non-tenured teachers were non-renewed (and only a month before the next school year started), and the other time was because a teacher who had been in an administrative position left it and wanted a job back - and she got mine.  These events occurred in 2 different districts (I currenlty work in a 3rd district).  Both times the non-renewal simply said "the school board feels it can find a more qualified person elsewhere".



> 3). Part of the point of the zero tolernce policy is to teach students that they are *NOT *allowed to do anything to protect themselves, because they are not worthy of there own safety.



I don't even know where to start with this one.  You have been fed a line and you have chosen to believe it rather than research it, and I find it not worth my time to argue with people who have already made their minds; it devolves into "because I said, that's why", and I'm just not in the mood.  Simply because students are encouraged to find other ways to deal with conflict than hitting back doesn't mean they are not allowed to protect themselves - and yes, I do know students at the school where I work who have successfully defended themselves, and have not received any negative consequence for their actions, as long as they did not counter-attack - a girl who blocked another girl's strikes was not in trouble, but the boy who was punched and pushed the kid who punched him down a flight of stairs was.



> The entire point is TOO teach kidds that they are inferior. And beacuse of some school trends, policys, and imcompent teachers American students are massivly behind on international standardized tests. Stuff like this is an example of the crapp that students have to deal with.



As I say, you seem to have developed an opinion based solely on your own experiences, and have generalized that opinion to every situation possible.  Does what you say happen?  Unfortunately, it does.  That does not, however, mean that it happens all the time to every student, as you seem to think that it does.  My students (and I teach special education in a middle school) most definitely do not leave my room, their other teachers' rooms, or the school feeling that they are inferior; rather, they leave with a sense of accomplishment - and that was certainly what I saw as they left today for the summer.  I'm sorry your school isn't like that (or that you only see the negative side) but not all schools are that way.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Jun 9, 2006)

One of my wifes TKD students was suspended from middle school for defending himself, even though there were several witnesses that saw that he didn't start it, including a teacher.  

I'm just wondering if anyone has taken a school to court for such a reaction from a school.

Jeff


----------



## fnorfurfoot (Jun 9, 2006)

Last year, when my son was in Kindergarten, he had a bully picking on him through the whole year.  He was aware that fighting in school was not allowed, and because of this he didn't do much to protect himself from the boy.  The teacher and the principal knew that the boy was a problem and kept telling me that they were working with him with his "socialization issues."  My son came home with scratches on his face, bruises, and once there was a hand print shaped bruise on his foreare where this other boy had grabbed him.  I complained and talked with the teacher, and basically she told me that she would monitor the situation but that she couldn't prevent the boys from interacting.  So basically my son had to be the guinea pig to try and correct the other boys behavior problems.  

My son is a peanut.  He was the smallest child in his class last year and he still is this year.  The boy was a full head taller and weight roughly fifteen pounds more than my son.  I was annoyed by the school's attitude to say the least.  In fact, I called and talked to the principal one morning to discuss the problem and that same day, two hours later my wife recieved a call from the school nurse that my son had a mark on his face from the other boy scratching him.

I had enough and told my son to do whatever it took to keep the other boy away from him.  Hit the child enough times to knock him down, make him cry, I didn't care.  I told him that I would gladly recieve a call from his principal if he defended himself.  I told him to not worry about getting in trouble.  Sure enough, the boy started up with him again on the playground.  He pulled my son off of the ladder to the slide.  I kind of wish he did something more along the lines of an actual technique but what he did got the job done anyway.  When the boy came at him, my son hit the bully with a U-punch (one fist to the chest and the other to the stomach).  The bully fell over backwards.  The two teachers saw my son hit him and they called me about it.  There was no punishment at all.  My son is so quiet and he had taken so much abuse from the boy through the year that they just figured that he had had enough and finally snapped.


----------



## Ceicei (Jun 9, 2006)

In elemetary school, my son saw another kid getting pummelled on the ground by two boys, so he got in to intervene.  One of the two boys then turned against my son and the second boy was coming.  He did a front thrusting kick to his chest.  

Of course, the teacher monitoring the playground came around the corner to see my son kick.  

After a lot of talking with the school and making them listen to the boy who was originally attacked by the two, my son ended up with only a warning and was told to go get a teacher instead of intervening.



When my son moved up to junior high, he was outside playing football during lunch with his friend (who also goes to the same MA school).  One kid came up behind his friend and did a sucker punch (he got a black eye).  My son then ran up ready to fight.  The attacker fled.  Nothing more came out of that even though a report was filed with the school.  The school didn't even suspend the attacker. His friend was told by his Dad that if he got attacked again, he has full permission to fight back.  I told my son the same thing.  So far, no one bothered my son or his friends again.

- Ceicei


----------



## tradrockrat (Jun 9, 2006)

As a freshman in highschool I got into a fight with a fellow football team member one day.  The kid was just being a bully and when I didn't cower in fear he took a shot at me.  I told him not to do it again and he hit me a second time.  At that point I pummled the kid until he was on the ground and then went inside to get a drink of water.

The principle went outside, got the story, then came inside and asked me if I was in a fight.  I answered truthfully and both I and the bully were held in the office until the parents got there.  The principle was going to suspend me for three days and the other kid for 2 (he came out on the wrong end of the fight). When the story came out that I had been hit twice first, my father said to the principle that he didn't care what the school did, I wasn't going to recieve any punishment at home for defending myself, but that the other kid had BETTER recieve the same consequences.

They gave us both three days.  him for starting it, and me for ... uh, "enthusiastically" defending myself.

My MA teacher didn't really like the amount of force I used so the next week I got to spare his national kickboxing champion for a round - it *still *hurts.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 11, 2006)

Kacey, I don't wish to argue either. All of that was mostly venting. I have done plenty of research into this matter. I have seen the student rule books for three differnit districts in my area, and they agree on a couple of things. One is an comment that says that the story of a student (as far as incidents are concerned) are so biased toward one end or the other, that they can almost not be taken seriously. So if a faculty member see's an incident, only there version will be taken into account. Otherwise, it's the version of the first to turn a report.
And I have personally heard teachers say there job is easy, they took it for the health benefits, and after they pass there probation period, they pretty much cann't be fired. An example is in the New York district a teacher sent sexual e-mails to a 15 year old student. While he was being 'fired' he was still being payed, and it took almost six years to finnally kick him out. They say it is easy because they have no real incintive to work hard. Or really at all. They get payed not what the perfomance of there students is.
And I have been told four times, in four schools, that no matter what I am not allowed to defend my self, because I'm a kid. Because "the oppion of a child on what is dangerous is vastly differnit then what is _acctuly_ dangerous."
True many teachers struggle against hell, high water, regulations, bad students, worse parents, and some adminstrators to teach better then they were taught. And I have taught a group of students my age, none of whom I got along with. I did better then the teacher at keeping there attention, which is a good chunk of the battle. 
And now I have two finishing comments. First of all, to everyone who read my posts, and either has, or will reply. I was mostly venting some built up furry at the school district I go to. So, alot of what said was baised to my side of this discusion. But I assure you that all of it was still based on facts or individual occurences. And now since I seem to have become unpopular, I will reply to those who have replied to me, and call it good with this thread.
And to the coward who gave me negitive repuation, and decided not to give his name. You are one to talk. I my not be able to spell well, but unlike you I have good grammar. And if you are going to insult me, fine. I really don't care. I'm used to being inuslted by other students, upper classmen, and yes even my own teachers. So I really don't care what you have to say about me. But if you're going to, why not try doing it with some courage. Say it on the thread. Or at leats put your name. I may be a biased, unspellable, jerk, but atleats I am brave enough to laugh at the dog when he's looking, not turned away. 

John


----------



## Kacey (Jun 12, 2006)

CuongNhuka said:
			
		

> Kacey, I don't wish to argue either. All of that was mostly venting.


I can certainly understand the venting - there's a lot in the public school system (from both the student side and the staff side) to vent about.  Too many laws have been written by people who have never been in the schools most affected by the laws... zero tolerance being one of them.  When the zero tolerance for weapons law was passed in Colorado, one of the current fads among middle school students was paper "claws" worn over the fingers - and I knew a student who was expelled for wearing them.  It was absurd.  As the law becomes older, and legal battles are fought, interpretation becomes a little more realistic - although it still has a way to go.



			
				CuongNhuka said:
			
		

> I have done plenty of research into this matter. I have seen the student rule books for three differnit districts in my area, and they agree on a couple of things. One is an comment that says that the story of a student (as far as incidents are concerned) are so biased toward one end or the other, that they can almost not be taken seriously. So if a faculty member see's an incident, only there version will be taken into account. Otherwise, it's the version of the first to turn a report.



I can understand the frustration this could cause - there are too many factors that affect witness statements to rely solely on the first person to report, and that system encourages people to lie for their own benefit.



			
				CuongNhuka said:
			
		

> And I have personally heard teachers say there job is easy, they took it for the health benefits, and after they pass there probation period, they pretty much cann't be fired. An example is in the New York district a teacher sent sexual e-mails to a 15 year old student. While he was being 'fired' he was still being payed, and it took almost six years to finnally kick him out. They say it is easy because they have no real incintive to work hard. Or really at all. They get payed not what the perfomance of there students is.



Sadly, in many places this is still true - but not nearly as many as it was in the past.  And just for contrast, I do know teachers who were fired for cause - and while there was some legal wrangling, none of it lasted more than a couple of months, during which time the teacher was *not* being paid, unless he or she was using accrued leave time.



			
				CuongNhuka said:
			
		

> And I have been told four times, in four schools, that no matter what I am not allowed to defend my self, because I'm a kid. Because "the oppion of a child on what is dangerous is vastly differnit then what is _acctuly_ dangerous."



If you were 5, then perhaps this would be true... but as silly as it is, zero tolerance became the policy because it eliminated all the other loopholes and interpretation.  Many things in public policy are on pendulums - the policy swings to one side, and then the other, back and forth repeatedly, until it finally lands somewhere in the middle.  The best thing we can do is help the pendulum land in a reasonable place, with a meaningful, and useable policy... but it takes time, and only such incidents as those described in this thread, as absurd as they are individually, can affect the necessary change - and it takes a compilation over time.  Any school district, or individual school, or business of any size, experiences the same pendulum - as does the government, which swings more widely and slowly than any other organization, by virtue of its size and complexity.



			
				CuongNhuka said:
			
		

> True many teachers struggle against hell, high water, regulations, bad students, worse parents, and some adminstrators to teach better then they were taught. And I have taught a group of students my age, none of whom I got along with. I did better then the teacher at keeping there attention, which is a good chunk of the battle.



Indeed.



			
				CuongNhuka said:
			
		

> And now I have two finishing comments. First of all, to everyone who read my posts, and either has, or will reply. I was mostly venting some built up furry at the school district I go to. So, alot of what said was baised to my side of this discusion. But I assure you that all of it was still based on facts or individual occurences. And now since I seem to have become unpopular, I will reply to those who have replied to me, and call it good with this thread.



I considered not responding to this post because of the negativity that had built up in it... but after thinking about it a while I wanted to come back to it, for this specific reason:  it takes a mature and thoughtful person to say what you just said, and I wanted to point that out, as it deserves recognition.



			
				CuongNhuka said:
			
		

> And to the coward who gave me negitive repuation, and decided not to give his name. You are one to talk. I my not be able to spell well, but unlike you I have good grammar. And if you are going to insult me, fine. I really don't care. I'm used to being inuslted by other students, upper classmen, and yes even my own teachers. So I really don't care what you have to say about me. But if you're going to, why not try doing it with some courage. Say it on the thread. Or at leats put your name. I may be a biased, unspellable, jerk, but *atleats I am brave enough to laugh at the dog when he's looking, not turned away.*
> 
> John



The bolded part of this paragraph deserves recognition as well.  The reputation system does allow for anonymous responses, and that can be good and bad - it's much easier to give negative rep anonymously - so the best I can say is take the good with the bad, use what is useful, and give the rest the attention it deserves... which, in some cases, may be no attention at all.

:asian:


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 12, 2006)

Kacey said:
			
		

> The bolded part of this paragraph deserves recognition as well. The reputation system does allow for anonymous responses, and that can be good and bad - it's much easier to give negative rep anonymously - so the best I can say is take the good with the bad, use what is useful, and give the rest the attention it deserves... which, in some cases, may be no attention at all.
> 
> :asian:


 
Kacey, any props from you is more then welcome. You are a truely good person and freind. And I wouldn't mind being taught by you. Too bad your a middle school teacher, and I'm going to be starting my junior year here in August.
And while I do like the reputation system, I don't like that negitive reputaion can be given anonymously. Hay maybe we should petition Bob Hubbard to make so that when you give negitive rep you name is included automaticly (lol). But like I said, I really don't care that much about that person. I know that while, I may not be able to spell, I got at least two things up on that person.

John, who now feels save comming back to this thread.


----------

