Pusillanimity, Part II

Monday, June 10, 2013

Pusillanimity, Part II

The following was forwarded to me by an OtBB irregular after reading Saturday's entry about the Maryland second-grader who was suspended for nibbling a break­fast pastry into what seemed to the elementary school administration was the shape of a gun.

Kindergartener interrogated over cap gun until he pees his pants, then suspended 10 days

"Dowell Elementary principal Jennifer L. Young told the kindergartener's mother that things would have been even worse had the toy gun been loaded with caps. In that case, the school would have regarded the plaything as an explosive and called the police."

With the suspension "for possessing a look-alike gun" re­duced to three days following a May 31 meeting with the boy's parents and their attorney, school officials said they "did not have the authority" to expunge the incident from his permanent record.

This is lunacy... has the entire academic community been overrun with fuzzy-headed pants-wetters?

A Lethal Pop-Tart?

Elsewhere...

Updating the monstrous story of the second-grade student who was suspended for two days after school officials said he chewed a Pop Tart breakfast pastry into the shape of a handgun, opposing sides of the firearms issue have before involved.

First, the National Rifle Association, taking a page from the Violence Police Center's playbook and never failing to co-opt any news story in service to their cause, presented now eight-year-old Josh Welch with a Life Membership to the 142-year-old civil rights organization.

When that news got out, Anne Arundel County school officials blew a gasket:

"It's outrageous that elected officials in our state who don't have anywhere near all the facts of this situation would choose to exploit an 8-year-old child for political purposes in a stunt like this!"

In the wise words1 of learned jurist Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals:

"The parties are advised to chill."

Just so!

Note
  1. Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc. 296 F.3d 894, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 2002

Comments

Commenting has been turned off for this entry.