7-year-old branded 'racist' for asking student about skin colour
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
Ron - These policies have become more common in the UK. PC types enacting rules and regs that can and do cause more problems, as in this case then the solve.
Well that's their job though, to sit around and pontificate and be "the correct way of looking at things".
Meanwhile the rest of us just go to work, spend time with our friends and families, generally get along fairly well with one another and keep society chugging along.
That is until someone stops us to tell us how we have it all wrong.
Bear, what part of 'zero tolerance' do you believe allows for thinking?
'Zero tolerance' means the rules must be applied literally and strictly, with no room for mitigating circumstances or interpretation.
'Zero tolerance' means the rules must be applied literally and strictly, with no room for mitigating circumstances or interpretation.
We go back to effort.
Do you really believe what this boy asked was racist?
Of course you don't. You apply effort and a reasoned judgment.
Are there ever mitigating circumstances for racism?
The very fact that someone, anyone, found that his question was racist, examples how the policies flaw is susceptible to interpretation. Because it is in the very interpretation, of what is racism, that we have a 7 year old, being accused of racism, because he asked an innocent innocuous question.
I thought Marxism had to do with the common ownership of material property; are you sure you don't mean cultural totalitarianism?
Yeah, stuff lke that isn't in the PC playbook, so it gets ignored. You can't have black colonial guilt, or Asian colonial guilt, that's just not possible. Blaming all whites all the time is the aim. Good, upright fascists hate facts when they're trying to fix the world. Immigrant communities tend to prey on each other in Canada, not white Canadians. The Tamils lived with a lot of that from the Tigers.
But in a zero tolerance situation, none of that matters. He is guilty of racism and bullying because, in a zero tolerance world, there is only a yes or no, and since the 'victim' believes it was racism, therefore it is. There is no tolerance, there is no room to question.
He asked a question about skin color, therefore he is a racist. End of story.
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
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.
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.
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
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".
Hmm yes. It would appear you didn't use that specific word. We all know what you meant though