7-year-old branded 'racist' for asking student about skin colour


Goober
+1
#91
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

So that's why you ignore the facts about First Nations all the time.

That's an opinion, not supported by the facts.

All one has to do, is look at the dismal affects of zero tolerance of bullying in the Safe Schools Act.

Scenarios such as the testimony of a group of bullies, being held with higher regard than that of the single word of the bullied.

Again, it comes down to effort, application, reason and interpretation. The flaws are many.

BTW, the alleged victim in this case, didn't make a complaint. His mother did.

TP is correct on zero tolerance. There is no room for circumstances. Many articles and studies have been done showing that Zero Tolerance fails,because of the black and white policy. You are inncoent or guilty - one or the other, no in between, cicumstances are not a concern nor entertained as such.

The case we are discussing is a clear example of that.
 
CDNBear
+1
#92
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

You are inncoent or guilty - one or the other, no in between, cicumstances are not a concern nor entertained as such.

Bullying and racism have no value in society. You have either been racist, or bullied someone, or you haven't.

It's basic black and white.

Mens rea applies.

Quote:

The case we are discussing is a clear example of that.

The case in discussion, is an excellent example of flaws found in kneejerk policy writing.

The board isn't handcuffed, and forced to accept all complaints as legitimate.

Quote:

City Council had a statutory duty to take racism seriously.

Quote:

‘There is a statutory duty to report any incident that is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person.’

Does not mean that any accusation, means automatic guilt.

It isn't forced, to punish kids that ask innocent innocuous questions.

One person thought his question was racist, the 5yo's mother.

She filed a complaint.

Had cool, reasoned heads, seen fit to assess the question, and the childs age, they would have been able to determine that his question wasn't racist.
Last edited by CDNBear; Feb 20th, 2012 at 01:40 PM..
 
SLM
#93
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Bullying and racism have no value in society. You have either been racist, or bullied someone, or you haven't.

It's basic black and white.

Mens rea applies.

The case in discussion, is an excellent example of flaws found in kneejerk policy writing.

The board isn't handcuffed, and forced to accept all complaints as legitimate.

Does not mean that any accusation, means automatic guilt.

It isn't forced, to punish kids that ask innocent innocuous questions.

One person thought his question was racist, the 5yo's mother.

She filed a complaint.

Had cool, reasoned heads, seen fit to assess the question, and the childs age, they would have been able to determine that his question wasn't racist.

And once again we are, I think, in a situation where those you misuse the concept/policy are defining the meaning of it.

We really should take back the planet from them at some point, they're gumming up all the works.
 
Cannuck
#94
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

TP is correct on zero tolerance. There is no room for circumstances. Many articles and studies have been done showing that Zero Tolerance fails,because of the black and white policy. You are inncoent or guilty - one or the other, no in between, cicumstances are not a concern nor entertained as such.

The case we are discussing is a clear example of that.

The problem really is that the worker bee will take all the responsibility if they step outside the policy and no responsibility if they stay within the policy. It is not "zero tolerance" as you say, nor is it "laziness" as CB says. It is micromanagement attempts from the higher ups which very rarely are effective. We need to start placing more power in the hands of front line workers if we ever want to end this silliness.
 
Goober
#95
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Bullying and racism have no value in society. You have either been racist, or bullied someone, or you haven't.

It's basic black and white.

Mens rea applies.

The case in discussion, is an excellent example of flaws found in kneejerk policy writing.

The board isn't handcuffed, and forced to accept all complaints as legitimate.

Does not mean that any accusation, means automatic guilt.

It isn't forced, to punish kids that ask innocent innocuous questions.

One person thought his question was racist, the 5yo's mother.

She filed a complaint.

Had cool, reasoned heads, seen fit to assess the question, and the childs age, they would have been able to determine that his question wasn't racist.

Please note the phrase unintentional. The policy makes no room for innocent mistakes. They are as guilty as the ones who are intentional in their hatred. Both are tarred with the same brush. A flawed policy based on intolerance for innocent behaviour. So reason does not apply, innocent error does not apply. No reason will be entertained for such behaviour.
Under this a person who is disabled would also be convicted, harsh term, but correct as they are required to follow this policy, without deviance, and if that disabled person used the same terms, regardless of their disability they would also be convicted as there is no room to entertain the circumstances- Zero Tolerance. Guilty or innocent - One or the other.

From their website

Ofsted | Single equality scheme consultation - Stage two

Pg 5

Promoting equality and tackling discrimination and harassment

Equality means that all people have equal access to opportunities to achieve or accomplish all that they aspire to do or have the potential to do. It means that people are protected from discriminatory behaviour, whether intentional or unintentional, by individuals or by institutions. It means that everyone has the opportunity to make informed decisions about choices that will impact on their lives.
We have a legal responsibility to promote equality and eliminate discrimination. We take these responsibilities seriously, not just because we are required to, but because we believe they are the right thing to do. Our core values explicitly place fairness and equality firmly at the centre of all we do.
 
CDNBear
#96
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Please note the phrase unintentional. The policy makes no room for innocent mistakes. They are as guilty as the ones who are intentional in their hatred. Both are tarred with the same brush. A flawed policy based on intolerance for innocent behaviour. So reason does not apply, innocent error does not apply. No reason will be entertained for such behaviour.
Under this a person who is disabled would also be convicted, harsh term, but correct as they are required to follow this policy, without deviance, and if that disabled person used the same terms, regardless of their disability they would also be convicted as there is no room to entertain the circumstances- Zero Tolerance. Guilty or innocent - One or the other.

From their website

Ofsted | Single equality scheme consultation - Stage two

Pg 5

Promoting equality and tackling discrimination and harassment

Equality means that all people have equal access to opportunities to achieve or accomplish all that they aspire to do or have the potential to do. It means that people are protected from discriminatory behaviour, whether intentional or unintentional, by individuals or by institutions. It means that everyone has the opportunity to make informed decisions about choices that will impact on their lives.
We have a legal responsibility to promote equality and eliminate discrimination. We take these responsibilities seriously, not just because we are required to, but because we believe they are the right thing to do. Our core values explicitly place fairness and equality firmly at the centre of all we do.

How was his question discriminatory?
 
Goober
#97
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

How was his question discriminatory?

To you and I along with many others it was not. The fact is that in the UK these policies have become as common as a rainy day. Along with incidents where the policy is clearly Ffd. That is the root of the problem. PC attitude has run amuck in the UK.
And as DS stated it has arrived here as well.

Quebec teacher censors Edith Piaf song to remove reference to ‘God’ | News | National Post
 
CDNBear
#98
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

The fact is that in the UK these policies have become as common as a rainy day. Along with incidents where the policy is clearly Ffd. That is the root of the problem. PC attitude has run amuck in the UK.
And as DS stated it has arrived here as well.

That's all well and good, but where was it established that his question was discriminating against an identifiable group?

This is where effort comes into play.

Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

... nor is it "laziness" as CB says...

I said nothing about "laziness".
 
Cannuck
-1
#99
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

They always take the easiest route....Unions don't like effort.

Hmm yes. It would appear you didn't use that specific word. We all know what you meant though
 
CDNBear
#100
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Hmm yes. It would appear you didn't use that specific word. We all know what you meant though

Your arrogance is ironic and hypocritical.
 
Goober
#101
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

That's all well and good, but where was it established that his question was discriminating against an identifiable group?

This is where effort comes into play.

I said nothing about "laziness".

Effort is not part of the eqation. The crux of the problem is policies run amuck. That is life for the past 20years or so in the UK. That is the point that no one is understanding.
In Canada we have instances of policies that are not well thought out and implemented rigidly, but no where near as many as they do in the UK.

Do some google checks and you will find out how rampant it is.
This is one reason why the British Nationalist Party has such a large membership. Partly due to rules such as we are discussing.
 
CDNBear
#102
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Effort is not part of the eqation.

It most certainly is. Fear of reprisal, or accusation, is what causes some people to acquiesce, and give in to such erroneous claims.

A little effort would have had reasoned people telling her to go pound salt.

It's not the fault of a zero tolerance policy in a school. That's the fault of people not willing to apply themselves, self preservation being more important, re; effort, for the arrogant hypocrites here.
 
Cannuck
-1
#103
 
petros
#104
In another 10 generations nearly all kids will look like this:


 
CDNBear
#105
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Your hypocrisy aside. I didn't set a goal. But I can understand how your admitted stupidity would force you to think that.
 
Machjo
#106
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

In another 10 generations nearly all kids will look like this:


I doubt it very much. There've been a few cases of a gene remaining dormant for a few generations and then coming up with a vengeance. For example, white parents giving birth to a black kid. While in many cases the kid comes out somewhere in between, they do sometimes end up taking on one parent's traits and not the others, or even more surprisingly, neither parents' traits but a grand-parent's instead.
 
Goober
#107
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

It most certainly is. Fear of reprisal, or accusation, is what causes some people to acquiesce, and give in to such erroneous claims.

A little effort would have had reasoned people telling her to go pound salt.

It's not the fault of a zero tolerance policy in a school. That's the fault of people not willing to apply themselves, self preservation being more important, re; effort, for the arrogant hypocrites here.

Based upon what the repercussions have been for others that did indeed step up to the plate. When you know it - the policy is dumb - it does not matter what you in the end think as that is not allowed. Common sense, hanging people out to dry, is what happens and people then say - nothing I can do about it.

This is the left wing PC idiots paying to much attention to people who blow things all out of proportion. Well that is what they get. Policies that causes more division as people are not permitted to think, only to react as per dictate.
 
CDNBear
#108
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Policies that causes more division as people are not permitted to think, only to react as per dictate.

I more or less agree with the rest of your post, this is the point I question.

That is not what zero tolerance policy dictates.

It dictates, that when accounts of bullying or racism are made known. The authorities have to take action.

That doesn't mean they have to agree with the complainant.
 
Machjo
#109
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

I more or less agree with the rest of your post, this is the point I question.

That is not what zero tolerance policy dictates.

It dictates, that when accounts of bullying or racism are made known. The authorities have to take action.

That doesn't mean they have to agree with the complainant.

That would depend on the details of the law in question of course, but I would hope the law be well-worded.

As to the law referred to in the OP, I have no idea, but the exact wording of that law would determine whether the school overreacted or whether the law itself is just too inflexible. At the end of the day, the school has no option but to obey the law no matter how ridiculous it might be.
 
Goober
#110
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

I more or less agree with the rest of your post, this is the point I question.

That is not what zero tolerance policy dictates.

It dictates, that when accounts of bullying or racism are made known. The authorities have to take action.

That doesn't mean they have to agree with the complainant.

Untill people can educate themselves as to how these policies impact in the UK, we will have more of these self same, good intentioned policies arrive in canada and we are just reinventing the wheel. Problems and all.

Remember the prayer room for Muslims - temporary policy in Ont. - this makes the 9 or 10 year mark for a temp policy - based upon they wanted to see how it worked.

But it was seen as catering to a religious group and excluding others.
 
petros
#111
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

I doubt it very much. There've been a few cases of a gene remaining dormant for a few generations and then coming up with a vengeance. For example, white parents giving birth to a black kid. While in many cases the kid comes out somewhere in between, they do sometimes end up taking on one parent's traits and not the others, or even more surprisingly, neither parents' traits but a grand-parent's instead.

2 generations for reference?
 
CDNBear
#112
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

That would depend on the details of the law in question of course, but I would hope the law be well-worded.

As to the law referred to in the OP, I have no idea, but the exact wording of that law would determine whether the school overreacted or whether the law itself is just too inflexible. At the end of the day, the school has no option but to obey the law no matter how ridiculous it might be.

I'm going by what was mentioned by MP Karl Turner. But I am looking through the policies at the Dept for Education, UK. For a better handle on what the policy outlines, explicitly.
 
Goober
#113
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

I'm going by what was mentioned by MP Karl Turner. But I am looking through the policies at the Dept for Education, UK. For a better handle on what the policy outlines, explicitly.

That is where it can get tricky. Govt also ceded a host of powers to local councils. Makes for a not me, talk to the other guy scenario when looking for a clear answer.
 
CDNBear
#114
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

That is where it can get tricky. Govt also ceded a host of powers to local councils. Makes for a not me, talk to the other guy scenario when looking for a clear answer.

Tell me about it. And quite auspiciously, the section on racism seems to be down at the Dept of Education, UK's site.
 
Machjo
#115
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

2 generations for reference?

What do you mean?

It only takes two generations. If that can happen, then we're not likely ever to just all look alike as some kind of middle-of-the-road race, since it increases the chances that even in mixed race marraiges, teh children could still take on clear racial characteristics, whatever the skin colour.
 
WLDB
+1
#116
Incredibly stupid.
 
TenPenny
#117
A definition (note that it does not mention 'taking action', it mentions punishing ANY infraction of the rule).

A zero-tolerance policy in schools is a policy of punishing any infraction of a rule, regardless of accidental mistakes, ignorance, or extenuating circumstances.

So, once a rule has been broken (ie, bullying or racism), there is no option but to apply punishment.
That's what zero tolerance means, which is why I say it takes away the requirement to think.

In this case, a kid's feelings were hurt, he cries racism, therefore there must be a punishment.
No tolerance for any other option, it's not in the rules.
 
Machjo
#118
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

A definition (note that it does not mention 'taking action', it mentions punishing ANY infraction of the rule).

A zero-tolerance policy in schools is a policy of punishing any infraction of a rule, regardless of accidental mistakes, ignorance, or extenuating circumstances.

So, once a rule has been broken (ie, bullying or racism), there is no option but to apply punishment.
That's what zero tolerance means, which is why I say it takes away the requirement to think.

In this case, a kid's feelings were hurt, he cries racism, therefore there must be a punishment.
No tolerance for any other option, it's not in the rules.

If (and I say If that is the rule, since I have nor read the law in question), then you're absolutely right. The school would not be at fault since it would merely be doing what it is legally mandated to do even if the school itself thinks it's idiculous, in which case the blame would lie in teh law itself.
 
CDNBear
#119
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

A definition (note that it does not mention 'taking action', it mentions punishing ANY infraction of the rule).

A zero-tolerance policy in schools is a policy of punishing any infraction of a rule, regardless of accidental mistakes, ignorance, or extenuating circumstances.

So, once a rule has been broken (ie, bullying or racism), there is no option but to apply punishment.
That's what zero tolerance means, which is why I say it takes away the requirement to think.

In this case, a kid's feelings were hurt, he cries racism, therefore there must be a punishment.
No tolerance for any other option, it's not in the rules.

There stills has to be an actual act. You aren't addressing that, you are addressing the single point that an accusation was made, by the child's mother, not that child.

Someone in a position of authority had to believe it was a racist question.

Zero tolerant policy doesn't have a list of approved racist and non racist questions to peruse in these instances.

Whether or not it's a legitimate complaint, has to be established.

If it were as you seem to be saying, under Ontario Safe Schools act zero tolerance policy, any kid accused of racism, or bullying, would be instantly guilty. I'm trying to dig up the UK's school policy on this, but their web site is a maze of blather.

That simply isn't the case.

Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

If (and I say If that is the rule, since I have nor read the law in question), then you're absolutely right. The school would not be at fault since it would merely be doing what it is legally mandated to do even if the school itself thinks it's idiculous, in which case the blame would lie in teh law itself.

Of course the law is to blame, partially.

Zero tolerance policy as a whole is not.
 
dumpthemonarchy
#120
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

In another 10 generations nearly all kids will look like this:


That's the dream of the multiculturalists, one big happy beige family. I've heard Americans say this, but not Canadians. Gotta be all those Mexicans flooding across the border into the USA. But they do seem so happy. Work on your suntan.
 
no new posts