Rather than documentation of any specific incident, an article yesterday by Kathryn Hemenway in the Battle Creek Enquirer provides excellent insight into the problems of taking discipline problems to the general corrections system instead of to an in-school system. Take the time to read what she has to say.
As I mentioned in a previous post, I’d requested the text of a letter sent to parents of children attending Ilion Junior-Senior High School in Ilion, New York. Principal Renee J. Rudd was kind enough to mail me a copy. I quote it in its entirety:
May 4, 2007
Dear Parents and Guardians:
As you know, the Viriginia Tech incident and the recent anniversary of Columbine bring significant sensitivity to us all. When students make inappropriate comments, threats, or speak of violence in any way, we must expeditiously react to each and every situation. No more are we allowed to tolerate any incident of this nature.
Based upon the report of inappropriate comments, threats, or the potential of violence, we will thoroughly investigate the situation, meet with parents/guardians, and contact the Ilion Police Department. It is no longer acceptable to make a comment and then say, “I was only kidding.”
I respectfully ask parents and guardians to review the following with your son/daughter:
1. If you hear of any inappropriate comment, threat, or act of violence, immediately report the information to [Dean of Students] Mr. [Dale] Turner, Ms. Rudd, a Counselor, or any staff member at school. Be sure to also share the information with parents/guardians as soon as possible.
2. Do not joke of violence, make inappropriate comments, draw pictures, or write threatening notes as this will be taken very seriously.
3. Refrain from the bullying or harassment of any student as this can result in a potentially threatening response. Do not call other students names, make insults, or inappropriate comments about them.
Recently, students have reported situations to the administration whereby Mr. Turner and I have conducted interviews with students, teachers, staff, and parents/guardians. Disciplinary consequences were administered and we have also involved the authorities. Even though students react with the notion of “just fooling around,” it is never a joking matter. We must take each report seriously and give it the same prompt attention.
Should you learn of any potentially concerning incident, please contact my office at 895-7471. Together we can maintain a safe environment for students and staff while keeping the focus on academics. Thank you for your continued support and cooperation.
Sincerely,
[signed]
Renee J. Rudd
Principal
As suspected, this letter contradicts the more public statements that included language like, “gray area,” “not cut and dried,” and no “cookie-cutter answer.” This is zero-tolerance and promises an incredible level of oversight and investigation that make me wonder where there will be much time left over for the proposed “focus on academics.” Where is the understanding that kids are still exploring social behavior, learning what’s appropriate or not?
In fact, I can’t help but think about the way that in elementary school, teachers and parent helpers no longer tell children that they are misbehaving, but instead ask them, “Are you making a good choice right now?” This is supposed to get the child to think about his behavior, conclude that it is not a good choice, and correct himself. The assumption that children will think like this or even have adequate background to evaluate the question is deeply suspect. Fortunately, most kids see through this awkward verbal construction and get the underlying message: “Stop that right now!” After all, no one asks them if they are making a good choice when they are behaving well. Kids need to be able to explore social interaction in the same way they should be exploring knowledge and be able to make mistakes without having their lives torn apart.
The most glaring problems in this letter are the lack of any real definition of “inappropriate” and the all-encompassing nature of the ban, as in “speak of violence in any way.” Consider the following things that are now banned by a strict reading of this policy:
Really, this letter first goes wrong in its very first sentence. Ms. Rudd has assumed that the Virginia Tech incident and the anniversary of Columbine have brought “significant sensitivity to us all.” I would challenge that very basic assumption. What happened at Virginia Tech is likely largely abstract and an aberration to most people, not something they really picture happening because some kids joked about putting the smackdown on their friends. Columbine, much less its anniversary, is almost certainly even more distant in most people’s minds.
Perhaps the school administration should have read the commentary in the original article and followed the advice of their own leadership rather than snapping out a knee-jerk reaction letter establishing an overly expansive and ill-defined policy.
The Utica Observer Dispatch reports on the nearby village of Ilion’s decision to establish a zero tolerance policy toward threatening language. I’ve emailed the prinicipal and vice principal of the school to see if I can get the text of a letter sent to parents describing the policy.
In the meantime, I’m amazed that they would suggest instituting a zero tolerance policy. “Threatening language” is incredibly vague. What exactly they will do in response to a threat is unclear, but the article suggests it could include closing the school while the threat is assessed. I would think they would be amazed at themselves, too, since these quotes from the article suggest they should know better:
Ilion Parent Rebecca Laymon said the question of what constitutes a serious threat was complicated. “The sad thing of it is it’s a gray area,” she said. “If you take every little thing as a threat, you’ll be sending letters home constantly. There’s got to be a happy medium between something minute and something major.”…
Ilion School Superintendent Robert Service said the question of whether to release information relating to the threat had been a complex one. “It’s not cut and dried,” he said….
Ilion Police Chief Timothy Parisi said there was no “cookie-cutter answer” to determine what constitutes a real threat when it came to students….
Let’s sum up: one of the two quoted parents, the school superintendent, and the police chief all go on record saying that there’s no one-size-fits-all solution, then the village institutes a zero tolerance policy, the epitome of one-size-fits-all solutions. How incredibly puzzling.
An Associated Press article on the News 4 of Dothan, Alabama website discusses a 13-year-old arrested for threatening a teacher and using the words, “Virginia Tech,” in the threat. From the article:
The student was arrested Tuesday - a day after Houston County Sheriff Andy Hughes enacted a zero tolerance policy against using the words “Virginia Tech” in reference to threats against students and teachers. The student, whose name is being withheld because he’s a juvenile, was charged with making a terrorist[ic] threat.
(As an aside, did I call it or what, providing an explanation of the difference between terroristic threats and terrorism?)
Sheriff Hughes is being ridiculous. A zero-tolerance policy against threats that contain particular words? Does this mean that the threat, “I’ll kill you, just like at Virginia Tech!” is worse than, “I’ll kill you!”? I have the same problem with this as I do with hate-crime legislation. It implies that a crime committed by a person of one group against a person of another group is different depending on the groups involved. Again, I’m no lawyer, but this seems to run smack into the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The kid either threatened the teacher or did not. What words he used were irrelevant beyond the scope of what constitutes a threat. Giving greater weight to references to the celebrity crime of the month simply attaches greater fame and glory to the criminal that committed it. What we need is fair, equitable, and intelligent enforcement, not knee-jerk reaction.
Jessica Beym reports via the Bridgeton News that a student at Williamstown High School suspended for drawing a stick figure shooting another stick figure has been reinstated by the court and school has been ordered to expunge his disciplinary record of any mention of the incident.
“I can open the front page of the New York Times and see pictures far more violent than the one at issue,” [Judge Joseph E.] Irenas said.
Of course he did. The day this kid drew his stick figures was the same day as the Virginia Tech massacre. That it took a U.S. District Court judge to tell the school district that they were being ridiculous is just another huge waste of taxpayer money. As is the reimbursement for six hours of tutoring that will be used to replace the student’s three missed days. The boy deserves the tutoring, it’s just a shame it’s not coming out of administrators’ own pockets.
Kudos to Judge Irenas for a wise decision.
As reported in Fort Bend Now, a student at the Houston-area Clements High School has been arrested and banned from graduation because he used the layout of his school in creating a map for a 3D first-person shooter video game. As if that wasn’t enough lunacy, a search of his house resulting in finding a hammer in his bedroom - he apparently had it in there so he could fix his bed. The hammer was confiscated as a potential weapon. The student has been determined a “terroristic threat.”
As an important side note, I should point out that terroristic threatening is not associated with terrorism. The term was in use long before domestic terrorism was brought to the forefront of national attention with the attacks of September 11, 2001. A friend of mine in Atlanta that has occasionally worked as a bartender clued me into this particular legal term some years ago. A terroristic threat can be as simple as saying, “Stop it or I’ll punch you in the nose.” Interestingly enough, a terroristic threat is in some jurisdictions a more serious crime than battery. Thus, if you really feel you must punch someone in the nose, you’re commiting one less crime, and a less serious one, if you don’t first tell your intended target.
While I’m writing about my friends, I have another friend in Birmingham that does 3D modeling as part of a career in artwork. He was commissioned to make a 3D model of a real hydroelectric dam as part of a game that let children explore the environment on and around the dam. He used the Unreal game engine and it’s likely that’s what this unfortunate student was using, as that’s arguably the top 3D modeling engine for gaming around.
Generating environments for 3D games is hard work. Shortcuts like using existing buildings, guaranteed to have realistic layouts, is an incredibly common part of getting such a project complete. I recall that when the Xbox 360 came out, one of the game publishers (I’m not remembering which one) was including in promotional materials a description of how they scoured the city for great textures they could photograph and use in the game, like doors and walls with rust, grafitti, and general wear-and-tear. The resulting games were more realistic because of it.
Basically, this kid is being punished for taking a common shortcut aiding in realism when doing intelligent software design work of the sort he could otherwise be highly paid to do shortly after his (now suspended) graduation. Or even now, had he delivered his designs via Second Life instead of via a video game.
That he’s Chinese (bringing up immediate thoughts of the Virginia Tech massacre - after all, Chinese and Koreans all look the same to the paranoid) and that school board elections are only days away undoubtedly add to the furor.