The student allegedly took "inappropriate" photos of a female student on his cellphone, then refused to turn it over to teachers.What does that mean? Was he running around perving out trying to take upskirts or something? Or did he sneak off with his girlfriend to take some naughty pictures? Or were these pictures he took somewhere else? I think it makes a big difference. I certainly wouldn't want to turn my cellphone over to someone just because they asked for it.
STUDENTS MUST NOT HARM ANOTHER PERSON IN ANY WAY.This policy covers the student's behavior as well as his suspected action. In my opinion, the principal's goal was to obtain the phone and examine it for evidence before the kid wiped it. However, the kid, threatened, lashed out and the principal escalated instead de-escalated. That, I think was his mistake. When I was teaching, we had to have training in when and if to use restraint and the result was almost never - the potential consequences are too high. Exceptions include when a child is an immediate danger to him/herself or surrounding people, which I didn't see there. Even then, restraint methods like that shouldn't be used because of possible head/neck injury.
Students will not participate in violence or intimidation. Students will not participate in defiant behaviour. Students will not use force to injure another person or instigate or encourage others to use force. Students will no threaten to use force. Behaviour which is violent is not acceptable; this includes fighting, pushing, shoving, tripping, kicking, spitting, rough housing, throwing anything including snowballs, and verbal or physical intimidation. Sexually explicit behaviour, material or language that offends the generally accepted community values will not be tolerated. Pornographic material is not allowed on school property.
Consequences of Misbehaviour
Disrespect or inappropriate behaviour will result in immediate action by staff and or administration. The student may be suspended and the RCMP may be contacted. Other disciplinary actions may apply as listed in Section 1A
His severe disciplinary methods (often involving corporal punishment, not unusual at the time) — as well as a general suspicion amongst the villagers that he was somewhat mad — led to a long series of bitter disagreements with some of his students' parents, and eventually culminated in April 1926 in the collapse of an eleven year old boy whom Wittgenstein had struck on the head. The boy's father attempted to have Wittgenstein arrested, and despite being cleared of misconduct he resigned his position and returned to Vienna, feeling that he had failed as a school teacher.When I went into teaching, I had no idea of the scale of the discipline problem, and I left the profession with a profound awareness of my own failure in this and other areas. There are few occupations which so test a person’s sense of self and of obligation to others. I feel that, yes, the principal made a mistake. But the mere fact that it is now widely discussed is serious punishment. I wish there were an organization that helped teachers who have failed. Lord knows that the unions aren’t interested in that.
Schools have rules and a hierarchy. No phones, means I have to enforce the rule and confiscate the phone. No do-rag means that I have to ask you to take it off. Oh, and did I love it when my AP called me in and gave me an earful about allowing kids to keep the phones and the do-rags because I just didn't want to have drama that day? Not so much. Hierarchy means that you may not like me, you may think I'M a piece of shit, but you have to sit down and shut up about it. Don't have to respect me, just have to show me respect.I think that you may have taken the wrong lesson away from that experience.
Rule No. 1 - Do not touch a student for any reason whatsoever, even if the student's an aggressor.Is this policy? It certainly has the benefit of being clear. If it is this situation is pretty clear cut. If not, what kind of methods are acceptable? when? What were the circumstances of this particular incident? Do they meet that test? What training to staff have in the application or use of restraint/force?
Rule No. 2 - Call the police.
Rule No. 3 - Call the police
Rule No. 4 - Call the police.
Assuming that "inappropriate" means upskirt, I see the principle as defending the rights of female students and in that light, he did nothing wrong.WHY ARE YOU ASSUMING THAT?
Protecting women from sexual predators is never wrong.We don't know anything about these pictures, for you to run around claiming the kid is a sexual predator is insane.
I wonder if the average MeFite really understands the concepts behind respect, discipline, force, and violence, and the fine lines between them. I don't see child abuse here, and I don't see a principal going over the line. In my opinion, a principal needs to be able to control the study body in whatever means are necessary. The principal was being disrespected in his hallways, and he needed to remedy that while also taking physical control and custody of the kid.Okay so now the problem is that the kid was "disrespectful" and therefore needed to be physically restrained? I can at least understand getting upset about upskirt photos (but there's no evidence that that's what this was. Calling what the kid did sexual assault is extremely hyperbolic. We don't know anything about the photos) But to argue that the principle had to do this because he was 'disrespected' is insane.
I do indeed believe the rules need to be a little different for him.The rules are there to protect teachers, from lawsuits. The same would apply to the principle. There was no physical danger here.
This isn't the entirety of the incident. It started with a teacher asking for the offending cell phone, which I'll guarantee you isn't allowed to be out in schoolWhat makes you say that? My impression is that Highschools allow kids to have phones, and using it in the hallway between classes wouldn't cause any problems.
Not that I'm trying to turn this into a pile-on type thing but in what way is that question not supposed to be interpreted as "well what if she was asking for it?"HEY. WE DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE PHOTOS. We don't know if they were consensual or not. We don't know anything. For all we know there was a rumor that the kid took photos of his girlfriend and the principle acted on that. We don't know. The article doesn't even say if the photos were taken at school. At no point does the article say the pictures were taken against the girls will. As others pointed out, 'sexting' is a big thing these days.
According to the Chronicle Herald, which is the newspaper with the highest circulation in Nova Scotia, the boy merely caught the beginnings of a fight [that never materialized] between two girls on camera. To avoid embarrassment (and perhaps stay in line with video consent laws in the province, I'm not sure) the principal attempted to confiscate the student's property and search it for evidence (which legal or not raises some serious privacy concerns).There never was a sexually explicit cell phone photograph. threeblindmice made it up.
threeblindmice did not make it up. It was being reported as suchNo, he absolutely did make it up. I agree "inappropriate" makes you think of something sexual, but it does not in any way imply anything non-consensual. It also doesn't imply any nudity. It could have been two girls kissing, or one doing a sexy pose in the hallway.
According to the association, Fells demanded that a boy turn over his cellphone because he was taking inappropriate pictures of a girl. The boy was defiant and became physical. There was an altercation.
-now everything is on a security camera, and if you ever ever make a mistake in judgement, you'll get fired and potentially sued and financially ruinedOr, more likely only the most outrageous examples make the news. There are occasionally examples in the news of schools where there isn't a lot of discipline. One example would be that school where that Irish girl got bullied into suicide. Of course those places only make the news when something terrible happens.
-now everything gets photographed and put on the Internet, so any little childish joke or tease turns into a life ruining, suicide provoking sexual assault case
-now people are so quick to assert their rights and enforce the rule of law that we can't just shrug off an injustice with "hey, life's not fair", we have to whip out the zero tolerance all rules obeyed or face the full force of law.
This isn't a full citizen with full rights and responsibilities out in the free world, this is a minor in school under the authority of this man who's powers are ostensibly granted to him by his parents.What? In the U.S, and I assume Canada as well most schools are run by the government. And the authority isn't "given" by the parents; and the government mandates attendance. You're not even legally allowed to drop out until 16, which this was under. The idea that there is some kind of voluntary transfer of parental rights is insane. And it doesn't sound at all like this kid's parents approved of him being thrown to the ground.
A child is in no position to make a judgement regarding the authorities their parents have placed over them.Well what about his fucking actual parents? Anyway, that's just insane.
1) Two girls get into an argument, it looks like they may start physically fighting (but don't)It sounds like you're suggesting there was some kind of "game of telephone" where the principle could get the wrong idea. I don't see how that's possible since it sounds like he intervened right away. And if there was a "game of telephone" and he heard from someone who heard from someone, etc, then physically restraining the kid is even less sensible.
2) A bunch of people pull out cellphones and start recording
3) Principle 'restrains' student.
What threat the principal believed Mr. Boutilier posed that day in March has not been revealed.There's still so much that we just don't know about this particular situation. The action Mr. Fells took was exceptional and I'm glad there was serious follow-up and high-level review on it.
...
The student, who acknowledges getting into trouble in the past, admits he was breaking the rules by using a cellphone. He said he refused to surrender it to staff and that Mr. Fells was “stalking” him through the school immediately before the incident on the video.
...
Corporal punishment is specifically banned under the Halifax board’s code of conduct, but physical contact is not. Chairman Irvine Carvery said staff need discretion to act in dangerous situations.
...
Mr. Carvery said the elected board members who opted to retain Mr. Fells heard more evidence than was available to the staff who recommended he be fired. He added that neither Mr. Fells’s vocal supporters nor his prominence in the black community were factors considered by the board.
« Older LA Times: "When UC Berkeley officials came up... | Pope John Paul II, the musical... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by empath at 2:14 AM on June 4, 2010 [4 favorites]