A first-grade teacher has been charged with disorderly conduct after she cut off the braids of 7-year-old Lamya Cammon after the girl continued to play with them in class. However, she might not face criminal charges.
The teacher had told Lamya not to play with her beaded braids and, when she continued to do so, she allegedly called her to the front of the class and cut them off with scissors.
As the other children laughed at her, the teacher allegedly said “Now what you gonna go home and say to your momma?”
The response was a bit surprising: a $175 fine. I would have thought battery might be a more likely charge. One article below says that there will be no criminal charge and only the fine.
For the full story, click here.
If I was daddy there would be criminal charges of battery, after this teachers hair was looking like a 7 year old cut it.
That’s a fine example for teaching students how to deal with frustration! What was that teacher thinking? It appears she doesn’t have the kind of temperament that one needs if one is going to be working with young children.
If I were the childs father the teacher would never have to worry about teaching ever again. Fertilizer come to mind, compost ya never know, lots of abandoned warehouses in Milwaukee…..
Those are not braids, well they are if your white.
They are called Platts or commonly referred to as Corn Rows.
“Now what you gonna go home and say to your momma?”
“Momma? I wouldn’t worry about momma. I’m going to tell her daddy told me I could kick the shit out of anyone laying hands on me without my express permission if I thought their intention was violence against my person and that if I couldn’t? I should call him. So I’ll just go call him when you’re done assaulting me. So the pertinent question is what are you gonna say to my daddy? He’s grouchy. Did I mention he used to be a lawyer?”
I had a coach pull my hair once trying to be a macho douche bag. After I told him he had 10 seconds to release me and then whacked him in the head with a pylon, my parents got his ass fired almost immediately. That’s the minimum this “teacher” deserves.
wow, I agree with Elaine.
Not wow in the sense of I find myself agreeing with Elaine, but wow in the sense that someone would take such liberties with another person no matter how old.
I think a time-out or a trip to the principals office would have been a better course of action.
Byron–
Do you mean a time-out/a trip to the principal’s office for the student–or for the teacher?
FTR:
They are called Platts or commonly referred to as Corn Rows. SB:
They are called Plaits or commonly referred to as Cornrows.
Worn only by women in Africa and by both genders in the US.
This story reminded me of the Magdelene Laundries, where nuns publicly cut the hair of their female students as one form of punishment. It’s clearly abusive; I’m not sure how people can try to explain this away because the teacher was a “good” teacher.
Any mind who could construct and act out such a punishment is far too dangerous to remain in charge of children. The teacher should be dismissed for cause. Criminal charges are merited.
“To gain the submission of the women, the nuns are shown using a variety of common forms of abuse designed to break down people’s self esteem and individuality, and to stop them from resisting the will of their captors. These techniques include: 1) cutting off the hair of women who resist, 2) verbally humiliating and ridiculing the women’s bodies, 3) forbidding the women to speak to each other while working, or to go to the bathroom at will, 4) forbidding the women to leave the convent or to ever see their families, 5) beating the women when they assert themselves, 6), retaining arbitrary control over how long the women need to work until they have earned their freedom, 7) dispensing punishment on an essentially random basis to provoke maximum fear in the women. We should be clear that these techniques are not restricted to convents by any means, but rather can be seen on display in many different settings, religious, institutional and otherwise, panned and elevated both where people need to gain control over the behavior of other people. Some of these techniques are even used for socially sanctioned purposes (e.g., instructors at military boot camps use head shaving and verbal humiliation, etc. to produce soldiers who will obey commands).”
http://www.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=3129&cn=2
Puzzling:
I agree with you on all but one point, Military Boot Camp.
At this point it is voluntary and they do not necessarily “break” your spirit. The United States military is as good as it is because there is plenty of free thinking. There needs to be some degree of uniformity in a command and control situation/organization.
The fact that the military does not vote in lock step is some proof that they are not broken individuals paying allegiance to one “god”.
Elaine:
the student for not listening to the teacher. The teacher should have put her in time-out and then if that did not work she should have been sent to the principal’s office.
But that teacher was out of line to cut that little girls hair and should be fired in my opinion or maybe required to take some additional courses in elementary education.
Byron–
I would never have sent a child to time-out or to the principal’s office for playing with her hair. Young kids fiddle with things all the time. I doubt most principals would want children being sent to their offices for such minor things. If the child was being disruptive in class, that would be a another matter. Good teachers know how to handle situations such as this one without losing control–or having to get help from an administrator. That teacher was most definitely WAY out of line!
P.S. You can believe me when I say that there were days when I was teaching that I wanted to pull my own hair out!
puzzling,
I’m very glad you wrote in on this topic. Your points are right on. Clearly this teacher needs to be fired and charged. This was an act of violence against a child.
I’d also like to address the sexism and retaliatory violence proffered by other posters. First of all, women can the shit out of other women, so there is no need to go to the daddy for hurting the teacher if you believe the answer is violence. I must disagree that violence is the answer. Cutting off the teacher’s hair or harming her in some other way will send precisely the wrong message to this little girl–that it is O.K. for a stronger person to hurt a weaker person.
Both parents confronting this woman in a mediation setting and having the woman apologize and take full responsibility to the child for her violence, that would help this girl. Having the woman face charges, that will help this girl and stop her from abusing any other child. The rest is testosterone based vigilante action.
Byron,
My husband is a combat vet. The military is very clear about what they are doing in boot camp. The drill “instructor” will say it: “We’re going to break you down and build you up”. It takes a lot of work to get most people ready to kill others. They have to tear down your sense of self and replace it with the one they want to create. Fortunately, that doesn’t work all the time. It’s working more as they become more sophisticated with their techniques, but as a testament to the human spirit, even so, many resist.
Striking someone in self-defense is perfectly appropriate no matter your sex. This is why I think all children, but especially little girls, should receive martial arts training. If they did? These kinds is situation would 1) occur less frequently and 2) they would be less likely to be solved with violence from either party if both parties understand the rule is “Don’t touch without permission or there will be immediate consequences.”
Stronger and weaker have nothing to do with that. A smaller opponent can defeat a larger opponent – that’s the point of martial arts training: self-defense against larger or better armed opponents.
That you somehow find that testosterone inappropriate is beside the point. That’s how it works. Self defense has nothing to do with sex. And you also missed he pertinent part of the joke above too. LAWYER. Now, given if that were a real exchange between a child and a teacher, the outcome has actually been steered AWAY from violent resolution by the child’s warning. Unless the teacher likes being sued. Did you miss the quotes? Or are you really just mad because we’ve been at odds on a couple of issues lately (sometimes by my deliberate provocation to move a conversation along, but if you want to hold Devil’s Advocate against me, well, you’ll have to deal with that)?
If you should have learned anything by now Jill it’s that I think women are by far the stronger sex, so if you want to through out the sexism stick, I’ll be glad to take from you. If you just don’t like it that a man disagrees with you, you better make damn well sure he’s actually a sexist before throwing that one out. You have seen what I do to arguments like that, right? I’m equal opportunity.
So, unless you just wish to gender disparage some more, you need to lighten up. 1) It was a joke. 2) In reality it would have worked out most likely to be the exact opposite of your contention – the hard words would have precluded or discouraged the hard violence. 3) The best way to avoid trouble is not to be there when it starts. Words don’t bruise.
So which is worse, hard word or hard fists? The one and only correct answer is “hard words if they avoid hard fists and fists only as a last resort”. Not all escalation ends in violence. It’s a two-edged tool. It can end or prevent violence as well when properly applied.
Buddha.
Here is what you wrote, the intent is clear:
“I’m going to tell her daddy told me I could kick the shit out of anyone laying hands on me without my express permission if I thought their intention was violence against my person and that if I couldn’t? I should call him. So I’ll just go call him when you’re done…” A mother as well as a father can teach her child the art of self defense. However, I’m letting your words speak for themselves.
I would appreciate your leaving out what you believe to be my motives in exchanges with me. I am happy to argue ideas but that’s where it begins and ends for me. I will not engage with you in any posting that contains personal attacks or things like, “lighten up”. You are allowed your feelings and I am allowed mine.
Well Jill
How about “lighten the f*ck up” then?
If you don’t like it? Don’t read it. You too can selectively read.
Get better logic if you don’t like having holes poked in it and you telling me not to assume motive after what you just did for me?
That’s just hypocritically funny. You are perfectly willing to assume a motive of sexism on my part but it’s somehow inappropriate for me to assume your motive?
ROFLMAO
I hope that was clear enough for you, Jill. I have a low threshold for hypocritical nonsense.
Buddha,
The above post is way out of line. Yes, I will be ignoring your posts from now on.
You can think I’m out of line all you want, Ms. Double Standard. Huff and puff is your standard retreat when you cannot defeat a logic.
Oh, I forgot. You’ll be ignoring that just like you’re ignoring “equal rights” means equal – this includes the “right” to be subject to the capriciousness of human behavior which has cruelty and violence as a subset behavior both sexes are perfectly capable of. Borgia’s anyone? Women cannot enjoy equality and be a protected class at the same time. That’s one of the big issues facing the feminism movement – some of you ladies want it both ways. That’s as stupid as racism. Women should be able to stand up for themselves against aggression just like any man. The inequity of this situation is not sexual in nature as both are females. The inequity of this situation is the abuse of power by one in a position of authority. Female on female aggression in the specific. Why that kind of pokes a hole in that whole “men demons/women saints” logic, doesn’t it?
But that illogic doesn’t matter, does it? Why I haven’t seen that kind of since reading Douglas Adams. What you don’t see doesn’t exist, does it?
Even if it’s your own bias.
“kind of adaptation”
FYI. In Wisconsin, disorderly conduct is a criminal charge punishable by up to 90 days in jail.
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0947.pdf
The article seems to think that, just because she did not actually spend time in jail, she was not charged with a crime. Not true.
Be careful before putting your faith in channel 11, Milwaukee. It’s hardly gospel.
Buddha,
I’ll be ignoring your posts too.
I don’t post often these days as I am busy, but the attitude you’ve shown with Jill is beyond disgusting. I’m sorry your child died recently, but this isn’t the place to take out your anger. As you said in the past, you have employees for that, if any of them are left.
And go on any tirade you want about me. Call me all the names you want. WHATEVER you say, we all know that you are an angry jerk, at least right now.
Keep being that way, though. It really works out well when you are old, alone and dying in a nursing home.
George
Jill you said, “Cutting off the teacher’s hair or harming her in some other way will send precisely the wrong message to this little girl–that it is O.K. for a stronger person to hurt a weaker person.”
I actually think that my message to my daughter would be this. I will stand up for you, defend you, and take what action is necessary to prevent that person, or others actions from repeating an assault on you.
The teacher already has shown her, the bigger, and stronger can, and will hurt the weaker if allowed, I’ll show her, that I would not ALLOW it more then once.
You said, “Having the woman face charges, that will help this girl and stop her from abusing any other child.”
I feel this message to the child would be, that only big brother can defend, and protect you. I for one will never let my child feel that only the government is meant to protect us, I have, and will continue to teach my child that we as individuals have, and can protect ourselves without government approval.
One reason for this is the story plainly states that she was fined, and would face no charges. That is the government not doing what you wanted, by not having her face charges.
I’m just trying to convey my points, not attacking you personally, so you can keep reading my posts.
And I should care what you think why exactly, George?
I hope you die old and alone? Simply because you dislike my tactics in dealing with someone under skilled at argument accusing me of sexism? I’m thinking your kids love you too, you cuddly Care Bear you.
Seriously. I don’t care if you dislike logic or my tactics. I don’t work for you or your pleasure, sport. I’m not for the thinned skinned. Warning: Adult Content. Poke me and draw back a stump. The right to ignore applies to you too. If you want to accuse me of sexism, I’ll be glad to dismantle you too. If you expect me to be nice about it? Well people are disappointed all the time. The “Is Laughing” should be a clue I didn’t mean “Is Smiling”.
I’m not angry at all though. That’d be you projecting your reaction. I’ve been angry in this forum exactly twice and I can detail both times. I’m a very slow to anger kind of guy and you should learn to distinguish a style from a substance. And jerk is a matter of opinion. I’ve stipulated before I can be a bastard so you just go right on with that “jerk” assessment. You are entitled to your opinion. You know what opinions are like too. You’re sitting on one. Just like my opinion you’re aiding that lovely double standard that women are somehow more “special” than men by rushing to poor lil’ female Jill’s defense. She’s a big girl and she stepped in this pile of sexism allegations herself. She can get out of it or not. Unless big ol’ George is gonna rush to her rescue from the big bad WORDS. Unless you think she’s incapable?
Grow up.
No one is special. Not me, not you, not Jill, not Obama, not Bush. No one is special. Not men. Not women. Except in their own minds.
So you chastise all you want. It’s funny. You know. On a logical level.
MacK,
I appreciate your keeping it to ideas although I thought the last line was unnecessary. If you keep to ideas, that will be clear and it won’t be necessary to mention that in your post. Here is what you wrote:
“If I was daddy there would be criminal charges of battery, after this teachers hair was looking like a 7 year old cut it.”
You are saying that you will go and attack the teacher and chop up her hair. That is a vigilante action. You are showing your child that one person has the right to beat up another person if they are in some way physically strong enough to do so. This means Might makes Right. That is a destructive message for a child. It is the message the US is bludgeoning the rest of the world with right now. It is the justification for every bully. Your daughter doesn’t need to see her father beat anyone up or to get a criminal charge for her to see her being defending against wrongdoing by the teacher. I know someone who went vigilante and he’s now in jail for 6 years. Had it been 6 months, it would have been devastating to the financial and emotional well-being of his children, as it is 6 years, they lie in ruin.
The powers that be in that school system handled the situation poorly when they allowed the teacher to remain in the classroom and removed Lamya. They sent a terrible message to Lamya’s classmates. They left the children with the impression that their teacher had acted appropriately when she cut off some of Lamya’s hair.
We teach best by the actions we take and by the examples we set. In my opinion, that teacher set a poor example for her students–and the administrators in the Milwaukee Public Schools taught the children in their charge the wrong thing.
Elaine:
I agree but I bet those other kids wont play with their hair.
That was a bad attempt at a little humor.
Wow, I hope this teacher never catches any of her boy students playing with their… well, you know…
Byron–
I’m sure those children WILL think twice about playing with their hair.
I saw students do all kinds of things during more than thirty years of teaching: chew on the ends of their shirt sleeves…chew on the necklines of their shirts…chew on ballpoint pens until they had ink all over their mouths…pick their noses…sneeze in my face without covering their mouths…decorate their hands/lower arms with markers…snap pencils in two…eat the tadpole food…rub yellow chalk on their teeth. I could go on. I’d speak to my students about such behaviors–but I wouldn’t humiliate them in front of their classmates…nor would I punish them for them. Sometimes I was able to joke with them about what they had done.
It really helps to have a great sense of humor when you are a teacher. I don’t think I would have survived if I didn’t. In addition, it’s good to remember what you were like when you were a kid. Besides, even adults, have annoying habits.
OOOPPPS! That last sentence of mine had an extra comma. It should have read: Besides, even adults have annoying habits.
Elaine:
part of the problem is adults think children are little adults. For example with table manners, a child isnt strong enough to hold his knife correctly while eating, they need that extra leverage. There are many other examples but that is one that comes to mind.
I would not call it vigilantism. I would call it corrective action, but I could live with that.
Perhaps it would not take me chopping into someones hair like Bugs Bunny on steroids, but I would none the less.
My daughter is 25 now, and I would still correct an action taken by another against her.
When my daughter was in high school,she would not pitch for the coaches traveling softball team. He was petty, and benched her at about 4 of the school games, and she wanted to quit. I would not let her. It was not fair, but I explained sometimes in life some things are not fair; however you keep trying.
They lost a game that she sat the bench on, and he had the team running drills after the game. After about 10 minutes the girls were dragging, so I told him that was enough. He said he was the coach, and would decide when it was enough, and they had not played as a team, so they could run as one. I said I did not have a problem with that, but since he was the coach he’d better join the team, or I would come over the fence, and make him run with his team. I did not have to beat his ass, and they did stop running right then. Why because he knew by my actions, and demeanor that it was not an idle threat.
My daughter started playing again, and learned that sometimes things in life are not fair, but a corrective action can correct an unfair situation.
That sounds like something the founding fathers had to do against King George III, thereby creating the United States. I guess they were just a bunch of vigilantes, and did not take the correct action.
To compare pinning down a teacher and forcably cutting off her hair to anything the founding fathers did doesn’t seem realistic to me. You are speaking about a situation with many different options yet what you propose will require harm to another person and will leave your daughter and the rest of yourfamily in a bad situation.
You can file a civil action against the teacher and the school. You can protest outside her home and the school along with other people who are concerned that this woman is teaching at the school. You can object at the school board meeting. You can go to a mediator and try to resolve this issue. There is no need to resort to violence, so why would you?
Now let’s look at how violence plays out in the situation you describe. In order to cut the hair off an adult woman, you will need to subdue her, most likely, rather forcefully, You will need to stalk her to pick your time or perhaps you would just like to do this in front of her class at school. You will then need a knife or scissors to accomplish your task. While you are struggling with a sharp object, is there a guarantee that you will not puncture her eye or a vital organ? No, not really, if you are honest. Then you are looking at some serious time for murder or attempted murder. You would also be looking at serious time for stalking/possible kidnapping (a federal crime). You may wound yourself during the attack and face a medical bill you cannot afford. You too might get the wrong organ punctured and die.
Looking at these actions, why do choose the one action with the worst possible outcomes in the name of “helping” your daughter? Are you really helping her. Do you really have no other options that will show her you value her, without committing violence to another human being? I just named several viable options. I am sorry that you feel the best way to redress this wrong is by committing another. (We will not agree on this I’m sure.)
And I’m sorry you don’t have a sense of humor.
Deal?
the thing that is really getting to me, in addtion to the obvious here-
what did she use to cut this child’s hair?
what if the little girl had moved or jumped?
were they sharp scissors or blunt kid’s scisors? i can’t see kid’s ones being able to cut thru a plait
The whole purpose in plaiting a child’s hair is to make her look well cared for and feeling good about herself. The teacher chopped off a portion of this child’s hair thus making her appear unkempt, unattractive, and no longer feeling good about herself. She chose to take this action in front of the class thus adding the ridicule of others to the child’s misery. Her willful physical abuse and public violation of the child’s dignity was complete.
It is strange that her position as teacher in the classroom should protect her from criminal prosecution. Had she been in any other setting such as a grocery store, public pool, public library, doctor’s office, church, neighborhood street, etc and taken scissors to a child’s hair because she was “frustrated”, I can’t imagine that all she would suffer was a fine without criminal charges. Is whomever protected this woman now her accomplice?
Mack:
I think you handled the situation appropriately. When an authority figure is being abusive to those in his charge, you have a duty to act and act decisively. In this case, you let the coach make his point, but when the lesson became punitive, you handled it, for lack of a better phrase, man to man. While I try to avoid sexist remarks, it is undeniable that sometimes the male of the species has to assert control in a primitive but an effective way. This is only true in the case of high risk of physical harm, but I trust your judgment here, and tinpot tyrants deserve immediate challenge. As we say around here, “Sic semper tyrannis.”
This teacher went way overboard with this haircutting incident. If I was the parents of this child I would be spitting mad, but I am not sure I would want criminal charges brought against the teacher, but I think she should be looking for a new, non-teaching job.
Teaching is tough, but there’s (obviously) no justification for humiliating a child like this.
However, we all know the worst thing in the world is “other people’s kids”. Frustration levels can be stratospheric!
The behavior of this teacher is both an outrage and more or less what one should by now expect to happen.
The following links to posts on Radley Balko’s blog http://www.theagitator.com/2009/12/11/sexting-hysteria-drives-teen-to-suicide-media-blames-sexting-fuels-more-hysteria/ Hit and Run http://reason.com/blog/2009/12/11/sexting-hysteria-drives-teen-t and Sylvia has A Problem http://sylviasproblem.wordpress.com/2009/12/02/what-happened-to-hope-witsell/ relate to what is not so much a tragedy as an atrocity.
Pete Moran.
“(obviously) no justification for humiliating a child like this.”
Your wrong Pete, the secrets to keeping control of untermenchen and untermenchen in training (ie. school children) is to teach them that they are absolutely worthless, that they do not have any rights including those rights that pinko, lefty, liberal, latte sipping, chardonnay quaffing political correct members of the chattering class call human rights. It is important to stamp out any vestiges of self respect or at least any external signs of it. If the little girl in her secret thoughts pretends that she has rights, that is OK but she must be taught to make no external show.