President Obama believes that children receive disparate discipline based upon their racial origin. President Obama maintains that Hispanic and Black children are inordinately disciplined for offenses which Caucasian children are not. President Obama feels that the educational system is way station for the prison system for many Black and Hispanic children. President Obama believes that the educational system should be more lenient on Black and Hispanic children as they are on Caucasian children.
When did he say all of this? I would appreciate a link, so I can read what he said.
Very provocative don't you think? Quotes and resources please
I do not have a link. It is weak today. However, Newsmax on the internet(Bing or Google) on January 9, 2014 stated what President Obama said about Black and Latino children being disciplined more disportionately than Caucasian children for the same offenses. He wanted school's zero tolerance policies relexed when it comes to discipline, especially in reference to Black and Latino children whom he believe that teachers and administrators target unfairly.
I have to wonder what the racial dynamics were to make such a statement. Were the different races in the same student body and what was the proportion of Whites to Blacks and Latino's? My children went to Hawaiian schools for a short time and they experienced prejudice because the rest of the student body was mostly Asian and Hawaiian. So is it a regional issue? Look I don't agree with any preferential treatment based on any ethnic guidelines. I feel that for children to grow up and be strong well rounded adults they must learn about life and all of its' shortcomings without Mom & Dad making it nice-nice.
That didn't actually come from Obama. It came from Eric Holder who (rightly) says we need to reduce silly zero tolerance policies in schools. The idea is that teachers are more likely to call in the authorities if a black or Hispanic child commits an infractions. There was a lawsuit and a study that backed that up in one southern state. The upside for all children is that they will no longer be suspended for chewing their chicken nugget into the shape of a handgun. Zero tolerance always made zero sense.
I disagree with what he is saying. He probably hasn't set foot in a classroom for a really long time, if ever! He is wrong.
I would like to see exactly what he said, not a hearsay summary.
Zero tolerance makes perfect sense if you have the categories set up right. That is--nothing that is or actually could be mistaken for a gun. It is a concept that is meant to reduce ambiguity and arbitrariness, not cause it.
Problem is that that means we give authority to someone to make a judgement call; something the public is extremely unlikely to ever embrace.
In the end someone in authority has to make the judgement of what weapon or weapon-like objects can be taken to school. I don't think that can be avoided. They just need to do a better job of it.
Doesn't this contradict your original statement?
"...Zero tolerance makes perfect sense if you have the categories set up right. That is--nothing that is or actually could be mistaken for a gun. It is a concept that is meant to reduce ambiguity and arbitrariness, not cause it.
What about an example of an inoperable Civil War rifle, or inoperable musket brought into a history class? Seems to me that the benefits as a teaching tool would certainly warrant a "judgement" call.
It is all about folks making judgement calls. Haven't there been enough silly examples to prove that?
... a plastic butter knife for a sandwich spread in a kids lunch?
... an Eagle Scouts camping knife in his camping gear in his car trunk?
etc. etc. etc.
Zero Tolerance has been proven to be a dumb idea over and over again. This is one issue I find completely indefensible in a human society.
No, I am entirely internally consistent.
Zero tolerance requires you to set a category by objective standards and stick to it. I disagree with how they set the category, not the principle of zero tolerance.
IMHO it should include anything that is a weapon or could be mistaken for one causing unnecessary alarm and disorder. That would include realistic replicas and inoperable weapons.
Of course exactly how to set the category is up for debate but should be determine by the community, and implemented (not determined) by the teacher and school security. I very much think that unacceptable/acceptable line should be as black and white as possible to allow people to clearly understand and comply with it, and based on excluding actual threats. And that is the basic goal of zero tolerance.
I think most people agree the category need to be tightened to some degree to exclude things clearly not able to be mistaken for a real gun and just part of imaginative play.
So everyone of your examples should be clearly in, or clearly out, on some sensible basis. The work that needs to be put in is in the latter area. Not having every teacher make personal judgement calls that differ from each other.
I understand what you are saying, and should probably just accept that we have different perspectives, but since I believe yours is wrong I cannot let it go.
Let's take knives... and I will try not to use silly examples like the gun-shaped poptart...
Would the policy be no knives in school, or no dangerous knives in school? And does that include all school property, (parking lots/athletic fields)?
Would the Eagle scout's camping knife bundled in his camping backpack, locked in his trunk be a violation? Or would parameters be determined and established to cover any such instance? All instances? How about if his dad's pocket knife fell out of his pocket, unnoticed, on the passenger side. A zero policy violation?
Anyone can see the logic of banning switchblade knives, but what about small personal pocket knives, (blades under 2"), - which many of us still carry - for their utility?
Of course no bowie knives, but what about a cake cutting knife with the donated birthday cake for the 5 year-old's kindergarten class? Is a 5 year-old going on a murderous knifing spree?
Or what about the young Cub scout that brought his new "camping knife" that included a folding fork, folding spoon, and a knife blade with a rounded tip that was a dull as a butter knife - in for show and tell?
Or should it be like some of the banned gun laws - specific knives and attributes listed?
Or could it be tailored around blade length, like many state laws now do?
etc. etc. etc.
These examples are not posed facetiously. I see them as acceptable and innocent occurrences that should/could be easily handled by the judgement of on-site personnel, (teacher/principle/administrator) - if their hands are not tied by a Zero Tolerance decree.
It seems to me that a well-categorized and articulated Zero Tolerance knife policy could easily surpass Obamacare's multi-thousand page result.
I am interested in how you would formulate a Zero Tolerance policy to accommodate instances like this.
Was that sarcasm? Do you really support Zero Tolerance policies?
No sarcasm. As long as we refuse to give our employees (teachers, aides, principals, etc.) any responsibility or authority to make judgement calls we are stuck with the stupidity of zero tolerance.
A politician, or a group of politicians, sitting at a desk somewhere cannot possibly cover all potential items/circumstances to be banned or punished. If we refuse to give someone on site that authority then the only thing left is zero tolerance.
I totally agree. Along with that, our teachers need to be able to discipline students again. That's one of the reasons they adopted zero tolerance policies - because teachers are virtually helpless in the face of bullying, in-your-face kids. Instead of suspending kids, which is what most of them want anyway, perhaps they should be given MORE school. And perhaps their parents should have to attend as well.
Just thinking outloud.
Zero tolerance, unfortunately, extends much farther than a differentiation between and actual gun and gun-shaped chicken nugget. Zero tolerance means just what it says - no tolerance whatsoever for those who behave in an antisocial way. The entire foundation of the zero tolerance premise is faulty. By definition it does not allow individuals to make judgement calls - it makes those calls for them.
At any rate - it was doomed to fail and now is it failing. I'm just surprised to see Holder doing it because it's typically the liberals that expanded zero tolerance way behind its first usage - as a weapon in the war on drugs. There too, it was an abject failure.
And Obama also said YES WE CAN, we now know what it meant. Enough of false hopes. He is a puppet and has to be seen as such.
Are these the ones you were looking for?
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/201 … hools.html
http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/obama-to-sch … =education
http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/lates … ng-way.ece
The man is obviously pandering for voting blocks for his leftist party.
The policy should be objectively defined and sensible and fit the general beliefs of the community. So it would depend on them.
For example, any knife blade exceeding 1.5 inches, from inside buildings in any way, or being held in the hand on outdoor parts of school property, unless given permission by a teacher for an educational activity on the approved syllabus conducted under their supervision.
That is my estimate of what an average community in the US might come to a consensus on. It is objective, it can be easily explained to all people. The school higher ups and determine the scope of exceptions under the syllabus.
Nothing is perfect but that is the kind of thing I feel is better than making it up as you go along.
For my own part of never saw or heard of any knife at school outside the home economics class that entire time I attended. So I have trouble imagining a pressing need for them to be there. But communities are made up of diverse people so you need to draw up categories that can be understood and tolerated by all groups.
Then by your logic, Two of the three examples I cited would violate your Zero Tolerance policy and trigger a police call?
The Eagle Scout gets a pass, but the Cub Scout, and the 5-year-old have to answer to the deputy?
Bullhockey... as I said. I do not believe any Zero Tolerance policy is rational and I should just leave this conversation as it is. So I will.
Also, it is not the communities that get to set the policies - it is the school boards, and their lawyers.
ps. if you ever find a "sensible" Zero Tolerance policy I would be glad to hear it.
Why would anyone pinpoint these racial unrealities? Children are children and teachers become teachers to help all children.
In fact, students and teachers are expected to be accepting of all people no matter what race. The teachers are very conscious of being politically correct in this regards and have been for YEARS.
by Steven Escareno3 years ago
According to young turks news channel on youtube, it's been reported that a 6 year old boy kissed a girl, on her hand allegedly, because he liked her. And it's also been confirmed, that the little 6 year old girl...
by Grace Marguerite Williams3 years ago
in light of the current sociopolitical and socioeconomic situation regarding the United States of America? Do you believe that President Obama is doing the best job he can under the circumstances? Do you maintain that...
by suiteorchids7 years ago
What do you think?
by Flightkeeper6 years ago
According to Mark Knoller who works for CBSNews and is known as the press corps' presidential statistician, Obama has played 39 times since becoming president. Bush played 24 rounds during his first 34 months and...
by girly_girl097 years ago
Back in the 60's:"And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." -President John F. KennedyToday:"What is the President trying to tell...
by Grace Marguerite Williams2 years ago
high schools, should bullying be relegated to a criminal behavior in which there should be stricter penalties, even expulsion and exclusion from normal schools, instead be placed in a reformatory school, juvenile...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.