We have previously followed the suspensions and discipline of students under zero tolerance policies that are used by teachers to justify zero judgment or responsibility. I have long criticized zero tolerance policies that have led to suspensions and arrests of children (here and here and here and here and here). Here is a prior column on the subject (and here).Children have been suspended or expelled for drawing stick figures or wearing military hats or bringing Legos shaped like guns or even having Danish in the shape of a gun. Despite the public outcry over the completely irrational and abusive application of zero tolerance rules, administrators and teachers continue to apply them blindly. We can now add Johnny Jones, a fifth grader at South Eastern Middle School in Fawn Grove, Pennsylvania. It was not a finger gun this time. It was an imaginary bow and arrow. That’s right, an imaginary William Tell.
The move against Jones was followed by a familiar refrain: zero tolerance means no discretion and no thought by school administrators. Administrators appear to relish rules where they can claim no choice and thus no responsibility in punishing children. According to reports, his family’s counsel has sent letter protesting the action.
In this case, a girl complained to a teacher that she was witness to the violent act. Administrators were reportedly aghast that Jones used a “replica or representation of a firearm” in “making a threat.” Of course, even the most mentally challenged person could see that a make-believe arrow is not a threat but that would require someone to take responsibility to protect the child.
Gene,
I do agree with you on the overall agenda thing, but when it comes to a specific legal case, one sometimes has to hold their nose. For example, I knew Richard Barrett, the Mississippi white supremacist lawyer. I could hardly stand to be in the same room with him, but he attended all the CLE seminars where I gave presentations, and always asked excellent questions. He had the reputation in the legal community of being really intelligent, and an excellent lawyer, even winning a couple of landmark civil liberties cases before the SCOTUS. But, it would have been a cold day in hell before I invited him to dinner.
For the person involved in a legal case, that case is the biggest thing in their life. For the lawyer, or for someone like me, they are only one of dozens of clients. I have to remind myself of the client’s world view from time to time–it is how I keep from becoming jaded.
Excerpts won’t post. Read Whitehead’s views on ALEC via the link posted at 8:08.
Here’s a brief excerpt:
“ALEC has also helped engineer a number of laws which bolster the aura of an emerging police state. For instance, ALEC has been the mastermind behind the recent strengthening or imposition of voter ID laws across the country. In the past, these laws have been used to discriminate against specific demographic groups of voters.”
Excerpt from link posted at 8:08:
The Stealing of America: The Incestuous Relationship Between Government and Corporate America
By John W. Whitehead
“The U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC not only gave unfettered free speech rights to corporations but paved the way for unlimited amounts of money to be poured into election campaigns, especially those of presidential candidates. However, what really made that ruling so significant was not that the Court granted First Amendment rights to corporations—formerly reserved only for individual citizens—but that in doing so, the Court legitimized an incestuous relationship between government and its corporate controllers.
Although big business and government have always had intimate relations, that relationship was at one time governed by a tacit understanding that the government’s first priority was to protect the individual rights of its citizens, while corporations—private entities, separate from government—were free to concern themselves with making a profit. Unfortunately, the rise of the corporate state over the past 70 years (a development that both President Eisenhower and Martin Luther King Jr. warned against) has done away with democratic government as we have known it. In the process, the interests of mega-corporations have been prioritized over those of the average citizen. Nowhere is this emphasis on corporate profit at the expense of the American citizenry more evident than in the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).
A nonprofit membership organization which purports to uphold principles of “limited government, free markets, federalism and individual liberty,” ALEC is comprised of state lawmakers and corporate representatives with a mutual interest in seeing legislation adopted at both the state and federal levels. ALEC was founded in 1973 by a number of conservative activists. About 2000 state lawmakers are presently members of ALEC, or roughly a quarter of state legislators in the nation. Unlike lobbying groups, however, ALEC is not required to disclose its relationship with legislators.
ALEC has been described as a right-wing organization, largely because its legislative members have a conservative bent. In fact, House Speaker John Boehner was one of ALEC’s early members. However, the only credo—political or otherwise—subscribed to by that of its corporate members is materialism, which gives allegiance to no interest, political or otherwise, other than its own. Indeed, while ALEC keeps the names of its corporate members under tight wraps, its roster includes some of the biggest names in the corporate world.”
The Stealing of America: The Incestuous Relationship Between Government and Corporate America
By John W. Whitehead
April 16, 2012
An excerpt from the link posted at 8:08:
“The U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC not only gave unfettered free speech rights to corporations but paved the way for unlimited amounts of money to be poured into election campaigns, especially those of presidential candidates. However, what really made that ruling so significant was not that the Court granted First Amendment rights to corporations—formerly reserved only for individual citizens—but that in doing so, the Court legitimized an incestuous relationship between government and its corporate controllers.
Although big business and government have always had intimate relations, that relationship was at one time governed by a tacit understanding that the government’s first priority was to protect the individual rights of its citizens, while corporations—private entities, separate from government—were free to concern themselves with making a profit. Unfortunately, the rise of the corporate state over the past 70 years (a development that both President Eisenhower and Martin Luther King Jr. warned against) has done away with democratic government as we have known it. In the process, the interests of mega-corporations have been prioritized over those of the average citizen. Nowhere is this emphasis on corporate profit at the expense of the American citizenry more evident than in the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).
A nonprofit membership organization which purports to uphold principles of “limited government, free markets, federalism and individual liberty,” ALEC is comprised of state lawmakers and corporate representatives with a mutual interest in seeing legislation adopted at both the state and federal levels. ALEC was founded in 1973 by a number of conservative activists. About 2000 state lawmakers are presently members of ALEC, or roughly a quarter of state legislators in the nation. Unlike lobbying groups, however, ALEC is not required to disclose its relationship with legislators.”
Whitehead, on ALEC:
The Stealing of America: The Incestuous Relationship Between Government and Corporate America
By John W. Whitehead
April 16, 2012
“The only difference between the Republican and Democratic parties is the velocities with which their knees hit the floor when corporations knock on their door. That’s the only difference.”—Ralph Nader
https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/the_stealing_of_america_the_incestuous_relationship_between_government
The Stealing of America: The Incestuous Relationship Between Government and Corporate America
By John W. Whitehead
April 16, 2012
https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/the_stealing_of_america_the_incestuous_relationship_between_government
Excerpt:
” Although big business and government have always had intimate relations, that relationship was at one time governed by a tacit understanding that the government’s first priority was to protect the individual rights of its citizens, while corporations—private entities, separate from government—were free to concern themselves with making a profit. Unfortunately, the rise of the corporate state over the past 70 years (a development that both President Eisenhower and Martin Luther King Jr. warned against) has done away with democratic government as we have known it. In the process, the interests of mega-corporations have been prioritized over those of the average citizen. Nowhere is this emphasis on corporate profit at the expense of the American citizenry more evident than in the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).
A nonprofit membership organization which purports to uphold principles of “limited government, free markets, federalism and individual liberty,” ALEC is comprised of state lawmakers and corporate representatives with a mutual interest in seeing legislation adopted at both the state and federal levels. ALEC was founded in 1973 by a number of conservative activists. About 2000 state lawmakers are presently members of ALEC, or roughly a quarter of state legislators in the nation. Unlike lobbying groups, however, ALEC is not required to disclose its relationship with legislators.”
For some reason, the spam filter doesn’t like me this morning. I had to sign in and rescue my last two comments (above). I haven’t studied the filter settings for WordPress/Askimet, but does anyone know if there is some way regular (well behaved) commenters can be whitelisted so it won’t keep snagging the regulars and GBs….as long as they don’t use the handful of forbidden words?
DogBiscuitGuy,
“…The Rutherford Institute (named after Samuel Rutherford, a 17th century Scottish theologian who believed that no one, not even the King, was above the law.)”
https://www.rutherford.org/about/history_of_the_rutherford_institute/
OS,
Yeah, I spotted the ALEC connection as well. Call me judgmental if you like, but I treat everything ALEC (or SPN) related as untrustworthy. Even when taking a hard to place case like Rosemond’s, they are furthering a very specific (and I think demonstrably disastrous if not outright fascist) political and economic agenda regardless of the merits of the claim.
Gene,
I did a bit of research on them as well. The Rutherford group is basically a libertarian law organization, which like the Institute for Justice, got its seed money from ALEC. However, the other side of that is they do take cases like little Johnny and that of John Rosemond, who otherwise would find it somewhere between difficult and impossible to get aggressive representation.
My view on such matters is that each case needs to be assessed on its merits, and if I had a litmus test for every lawyer I ever worked with, I would be out of work completely.
If the Rutherford Foundation was founded by a guy named Whitehead then why is it not the Whitehead Foundation? Something fishy here. Maybe he was a Redskins fan and was already taking heat.
I tried to find the source of the news story, so went to the Rutherford Institute web site. They are a 501(c)(3) non-profit law firm whose mission statement says,
They are currently representing the child. This link takes you to a PDF of the letter Senior Staff Attorney Douglas McKusick sent to school superintendent Rona Kaufman on December 4. She has not responded to the letter yet.”
https://www.rutherford.org/files_images/general/12-04-13_Johnny-Jones_Letter.pdf
Aha! From this story we can give birth to a new movement for free thought, free speech in AmeriKa. The Broken Arrow Movement. Print a symbol of a broken arrow on a tee shirt and under that a symbol of a broken First Amendment. On the back side of the tee shirt say: Johnny Comes Walking Home. Home To Home School. Then: another tee shirt: If All Kids Were Home Schooled These Schmuck Teachers At Fawn Grove Wont Have Jobs.
Oh. I can see the joy on the faces of the kids as they exert their free speech rights.
I’m with pdm on this one. Upon closer inspection, there seems to be little substantive or credible providence for this story. The Rutherford Institute, the nominative source of the story, is also not really a credible source nor what they present themselves to be on the surface.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Rutherford_Institute
I smell . . . propaganda.
This story makes me quiver. Can he get suspended for wearing an Arrow shirt?
Cupid is an outlaw? Even imaginary cupid? Wow. Ground zero tolerance already.
Hmmmmm….
I’m a little uncomfortable with the “reportedly” part. And Turley’s source is a pretty junky paper out of the UK. And this is all over the conservative internet – you know – all those well-known journalists over at The Blaze and Infowars and Federalists something or other. I couldn’t find anything from any local source.
Perhaps it’s worth watching, but I’m holding off on any judgement on this one.
Sounds like it is going to be an interesting Valentine’s Day at this school.
Cupids running amok!
The Horror. The Horror
Nor is a make-believe arrow a firearm, or a replica, facsimile, toy, or even imaginary firearm.
Reblogged this on The International Blogspaper.