Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Yes, the world has truly gone crazy, I am now awaiting a sexual assault charge for a group of kids playing doctors.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/20258837/first-grader-suspended-for-sexual-harassment/

A six-year-old was suspended from a school in the US state of Colorado, after kissing a girl on her hand after officials reportedly said the smooch was sexual harassment.

Hunter Yelton reportedly had a crush on a female classmate at his Canon City school. So he planted a smooch on her hand as a way to show his affection. A smooth move, no doubt.

Unfortunately for Hunter, the school didn't agree. The kiss was seen as a kind of harassment. Hunter was sent to the principal's office and suspended.

Hunter's mother Jenny Saunders told KRDO that the subject of Hunter's affection was OK with the kiss. Other kids told the music teacher about the sneaky smooch.

Saunders told KRDO:

"That was the day I had the meeting with the principal, where she first said 'sexual harassment'. This is taking it to an extreme that doesn't need to be met with a six-year-old. Now my son is asking questions… what is sex mummy? That should not ever be said, sex. Not in a sentence with a six-year-old."

Both mother and son told KRDO that Hunter isn't exactly an easy kid to have in class. He's been suspended before for "rough-housing" and for kissing the same first-grader on her cheek.
KRDO reports that the school district is sticking to its stance. The superintended told the station that Hunter's kiss fits the district's definition of sexual harassment.

His mother isn't happy that her six-year-old now has that mark on his record.

"How can you do this? How can you say this about my child?" she said. "Remove sexual harassment, remove it from his record. I'm going to stand up and fight for him because that's not the case, that's not what happened at all."

WTF?

Blah blah blah rape culture.

#checkyourpriviledge #anitasarkeesian

In seriousness, if the girl in question was the one who made the complaint there may be some validity to her feeling harassed. If it was just a school-person seeing it and freaking out this seems to be completely ridiculous.

That's idiotic as hell. Are the people in that school backwards as hell?

Ermagherd a kiss on the hand or cheek! Rape, call the popo.

Huh? Wait, Why do I think there is more to this? Like the kid was a pain and they are trying to get rid of him? Still putting that on his record is dumb.
Also, I knew what sex was when I was four.........Although that was a combination of walking in on my older cousin and a rather blunt aunt who didnt sugar coat it when I asked what him and his girlfriend where doing

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Huh? Wait, Why do I think there is more to this? Like the kid was a pain and they are trying to get rid of him?

The story makes the kid out to be a bit of a pain in the ass.

This may have simply been the straw that broke the camel's back, as it were.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Also, I knew what sex was when I was four.........Although that was a combination of walking in on my older cousin and a rather blunt aunt who didnt sugar coat it when I asked what they where doing

Your aunt and cousin have sex hotsauceman....now I know this a lot of things suddenly make sense.

News Article wrote:Both mother and son told KRDO that Hunter isn't exactly an easy kid to have in class. He's been suspended before for "rough-housing" and for kissing the same first-grader on her cheek.

This makes me wonder if there isn't more to this story.

Bullockist wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Also, I knew what sex was when I was four.........Although that was a combination of walking in on my older cousin and a rather blunt aunt who didnt sugar coat it when I asked what they where doing

Your aunt and cousin have sex hotsauceman....now I know this a lot of things suddenly make sense.

I am not ashamed to say that I laughed my ass of at this. Out loud.

I was not aware that the hand was a sexual organ. Masturbation suddenly makes a bit more sense and just become a whole lot kinkier.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Huh? Wait, Why do I think there is more to this? Like the kid was a pain and they are trying to get rid of him? Still putting that on his record is dumb.
Also, I knew what sex was when I was four.........Although that was a combination of walking in on my older cousin and a rather blunt aunt who didnt sugar coat it when I asked what him and his girlfriend where doing

You may want to rephrase that...although I do believe it's too late.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

News Article wrote:Both mother and son told KRDO that Hunter isn't exactly an easy kid to have in class. He's been suspended before for "rough-housing" and for kissing the same first-grader on her cheek.

This makes me wonder if there isn't more to this story.

We only have the offender's mom's word that the little girl was okay with the action. If she wasn't, and considering his past behavior, then this punishment makes a lot of sense.

Zero tolerance policies are to fault.

Not to mention a litigious society.

Also, the helicoptering parents and the socialist education model.

Even if the kiss on the hand was unwanted - and that doesn't seem to be the case - a single overture that is not repeated does not constitute sexual harassment, as Paula Jones can advise.

(edit - oops, I should have actually read the article instead of skimming, it's not the first time)

Also maybe don't apply adult laws designed to stop criminal or serious civil issues to the behavior of children on a playground FFS.

Care to explain those? Like how zero tolerance is to blame?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Care to explain those? Like how zero tolerance is to blame?

Zero tolerance also means zero critical thinking. A school policy that treats a child who brings a a tylenol into school for a headache the same as a child who brings in s bag of heroin is by definition not good policy but in many localities this is how they are enforced: a butter knife packed with a PBJ is the same as a Glock. This also applies, apparently, to sexual overtures in at least some cases as we are now reading.

Zero tolerance policies are to fault..

Are you at a loss as how to apply common sense to this situation?

I'm not.

However, the zero tolerance policy knows exactly what to do. Suspend a six-year old for sexual harassment.

Not to mention a litigious society...if the school was not worried about being sued, it would not have a zero tolerance policy. Trust me, little Jenny's folks are chomping at the bit to get some of that sweet education budget.

Also, the helicoptering parents and the socialist education model. The helicoptering parent would be the exact ones who would sue that their princess was traumatized by a kiss on the cheek or hand. The socialist model was probably misspeaking but it is pretty clear that modern society is set on feminizing every male it can.

It was never mentioned the zero tolerance was to blame, what was mentioned was teachers dealing with an annoying kid. Feminizing every male it can?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
It was never mentioned the zero tolerance was to blame, what was mentioned was teachers dealing with an annoying kid.

The manner in which they are dealing with his behavior seems to be stemming a zero tolerance policy. This is why they are issuing an oversize punishment to a scant wrong, if even that was really a "wrong". The girl doesn't seem to be an actual victim here - this story indicates she wasn't upset - but the child who did the kiss is now being wronged by the bureaucratic wheels that now only have one grind setting for dealing with misbehavior. Do you see what I mean?

But after actually reading the article instead of skimming it, it mentions that this is actually the second occurrence, which makes me wonder if maybe there is more here than this story presents.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Feminizing every male it can?

Hey, I can't say about that bit, there. Frankly that part seemed like a "this escalated quickly" element that maybe is a shoehorning of this issue into a larger Mens Rights narrative.

I could waste my time and explain yet again why zero-tolerance policies are needed due to lawsuit happy parents who are upset that their child was punished while another child wasn't even though "what my precious darling did wasn't really that much worse" but we all know that nobody wants to hear that.

So rage on like the beautiful diamonds you are.

I cant believe im saying this, I agree with D-usa......I need t go jump out a window

 d-usa wrote:
I could waste my time and explain yet again why zero-tolerance policies are needed due to lawsuit happy parents who are upset that their child was punished while another child wasn't (snip)

See, I don't get this. Doesn't the doctrine of in loco parentis mean that the schools have wide latitude to use discretion, legally? Honest question. From my lay view it seems like they're a lazy way to avoid making complex decisions.

 d-usa wrote:
I could waste my time and explain yet again why zero-tolerance policies are needed due to lawsuit happy parents who are upset that their child was punished while another child wasn't even though "what my precious darling did wasn't really that much worse" but we all know that nobody wants to hear that.

So rage on like the beautiful diamonds you are.

Eh... still doesn't make it right.

There really ought to be a waiver that parents must sign to abdicate their right to litigate, unless there's an actual conviction of a crime. That'll stop all of this non-sense.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I could waste my time and explain yet again why zero-tolerance policies are needed due to lawsuit happy parents who are upset that their child was punished while another child wasn't (snip)

See, I don't get this. Doesn't the doctrine of in loco parentis mean that the schools have wide latitude to use discretion, legally? Honest question. From my lay view it seems like they're a lazy way to avoid making complex decisions.

Exactly... and ALSO they're trying to mitigate potential frivolous lawsuits with a lazy policy.

http://www.theantiliberalzone.com/2013/04/20/the-feminization-of-the-american-male/

http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_schools_boys.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/issues/2000/05/sommers.htm



Yeah. The feminization of males.

 Ouze wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I could waste my time and explain yet again why zero-tolerance policies are needed due to lawsuit happy parents who are upset that their child was punished while another child wasn't (snip)

See, I don't get this. Doesn't the doctrine of in loco parentis mean that the schools have wide latitude to use discretion, legally? Honest question. From my lay view it seems like they're a lazy way to avoid making complex decisions.

They do have latitude to decide who to punish for what. And when they punish one kid differently then the parents sue because you are picking on their child because their child really didn't do anything worse than the other child (according to the parents) and you are only punishing them because they are [race/gender/religion/income/don't like the color of their car].

The lawsuit might be bogus but it takes time and money to dismiss and you are dealing with news trucks in your parking lot because it's sweeps season.

So everybody that does something stupid gets punished the same regardless of severity just so that stupid parents can't say that you are playing favorites while they call [Al Sharpton/Tea Party/ACLU/the superintendents mothers cousins former roommate in college].

It's stupid but it's sue-proof.

OK, that's a fair rap. Even if you're going to prevail in legislation you still want to avoid it.

Home school looks better and better every year...

TheAntiliberalzone? One with headers for wanted signs of american leaders?

Funny thing. I started homeschooling my daughter this year.

I dislike zero tolerance policies, but I know why they exist. It don't make my head hurt less with this story.

 d-usa wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I could waste my time and explain yet again why zero-tolerance policies are needed due to lawsuit happy parents who are upset that their child was punished while another child wasn't (snip)

See, I don't get this. Doesn't the doctrine of in loco parentis mean that the schools have wide latitude to use discretion, legally? Honest question. From my lay view it seems like they're a lazy way to avoid making complex decisions.

They do have latitude to decide who to punish for what. And when they punish one kid differently then the parents sue because you are picking on their child because their child really didn't do anything worse than the other child (according to the parents) and you are only punishing them because they are [race/gender/religion/income/don't like the color of their car].

The lawsuit might be bogus but it takes time and money to dismiss and you are dealing with news trucks in your parking lot because it's sweeps season.

So everybody that does something stupid gets punished the same regardless of severity just so that stupid parents can't say that you are playing favorites while they call [Al Sharpton/Tea Party/ACLU/the superintendents mothers cousins former roommate in college].

It's stupid but it's sue-proof.

But there is a fix... have the parents sign a waiver to not litigate if they send their child to that school. (excepting criminal convictions of course).