Because I didn't manipulate the parents. They asked me to join in. But mainly because I stood up for a student of mine who was being bullied by the principal of a school, and you're making me out to be the bad guy.
Amigo, you have been so far wrong in this entire conversation that you aren't even in the same zip code with right. I've pointed that out to you repeatedly, and yet you persist. You act like a Democrat, and you have gone from being annoying to being a pain in the butt. Just drop it.
Okay, Amigo. I have a little more time and a proper keyboard, so I will try to explain a little better why I continue to view you as... not THE bad guy... but definitely A bad guy in this scenario. First, though, I'll highlight your own words that really led me to this conclusion. I'll break it down as best I can, because, to be clear, I agree with you that zero-tolerance policies are generally a bad idea. My opinions about your behavior are specific to your behavior, as described by you.
My $0.02 worth is this: No one - not the school board, not the principal, absolutely no one - has the right or the authority to tell anyone that they cannot defend themselves against an assault. So-called "zero tolerance" policies do exactly that.
Getting into the details a bit, I agree with you that zero-tolerance policies are often misapplied and can be a convenient way for school staff to avoid applying sound judgment. Whether it's a "right" with a small "r" or a "Right" with a big "R" (as in constitutional), I agree that students should be able to defend themselves. However, there is also the matter of a students right to an education, which in some States is implied, but in others is actually stipulated in their State constitution. Kids, even bullies, have a right (or a Right) to education. And, there is precedent that schools have a duty to provide a safe environment for kids conducive to learning, and that this can, in some cases, supersede some rights.
But in general, I agree with you that students, should have a right to defend themselves in a reasonable way (as should teachers).
This is where you get squirrely...
I have had to intervene a couple of times when one of my students had to defend against an assault. In almost every case, after I educated the principal on the difference between fighting and self-defense, my student was reinstated with no adverse consequences.
So, key words here: "had to." I understand that now, after many posts, you've backed off of your tough guy stance quite a bit, and are saying, "asked to" by the parents. But, either way, frankly, this is concerning to me. Not overly so, yet, but this suggests that you have an elevated opinion about your role. You're a guy who runs an extracurricular activity for kids. You are on par with a football coach or a clarinet instructor. Which is why it's odd to me that you're involved at all.
This is also why I initially misunderstood and presumed you actually had a proper role in the situation. When you use the words "had to" that implies that you were required to. As a teacher who either witnessed the actual fight or who was this student's teacher (I mean actual teacher in the school, not coach), I can understand your being involved, even if I think you've grossly overstepped. As a coach for an extracurricular activity, I don't know why the heck you were even in the room, even at the parent's request it seems off to me.
I have had only one time where the principal was going to stand behind the zero-tolerance policy at all costs. I turned to the parents and told them to call the police and file criminal charges against the other kid and against the principal as an accessory to the assault. I also told them to contact a lawyer and file a massive lawsuit against the school board in general and the principal in particular, as well as calling the local TV stations and reporting this. They love this kind of stuff and would have cameras and mikes all over the principal within hours. She backed down and my student got reinstated.
This is terrible. I've outlined why several times and won't rehash. But damn. This is you being a villain. And further, you know it. Because you are very proud that you were knowingly intimidating the principal.
I was actually running a bluff on her, because I don't think that we could have gotten her arrested as an accessory. Fortunately, she didn't know that, either.
It's clear that you see yourself as the hero who can come in a save the day. But, that isn't actually the story you're telling. You're telling the story of a bully, against the backdrop of a kid who got into a fight at school. You're the bully.
But to sum up what you have said (not me). You're a guy who spends a few hours each week with a kid as the TKD instructor. You don't have first hand knowledge of the fight and are not an employee of the school. I'm guessing your version of the story is third hand, from the kid to parents to you. You have made it clear you view yourself as some kind of hero. From this snapshot and this version, you presume that the kid for whom you are advocating is entirely innocent and the other kids are entirely at fault for starting the fight. And you have demonstrated that you are willing to knowingly lie, mislead and intimidate others to get what you want, and are proud of it.
If you are the victim of an assault, you should never be punished for defending yourself.
See, this I agree with. But, at the same time, you have to be accountable for your actions. If you, as the grown up, aren't willing to be accountable for your own deplorable behavior, I wonder about the kids for whom you are a role model.
So, there it is. I've taken another stab at this, but honestly, I don't think it's going to sink in for you. This appears to be the first time someone has pointed out to you that the fiction you're writing for yourself isn't necessarily the entire truth. There are multiple sides to every story, and you seem shocked at the idea your behavior isn't universally revered. I'm not sure I can explain it in a way that will get through, but I've given it my best shot.
