Parents unhappy with policy against fighting

Wow, talk about lazy. I would think a fight would prompt at least some sort of investigation. Don't you want to identify the agressor so you can keep an eye on him/her? This reminds me of elementary school, when the teacher would punish an entire class because one person whispered at the wrong time. Also, unless the fight was the result of mutual aggression, doesn't this approach re-victimize the person who was attacked? I have to say, I'm not big on fighting - physically or verbally - but if I knew I would get suspended whether I was the agressor or the victim, I would do everything in my power to inflict maximum damage on my attacker.

Reply

I think that anyone being attacked in this manner should be able to fight back. Someone shouldnt be encouraged to stand by while someone beats the tar out of them....

It is simply the school not wanting to take the time to sort it all out.

Reply

I do agree with the zero tolerance policy, although this one seems extreme. Our school had many fights. Mainly because the school was very mixed race, and it seemed almost every fight had to deal with race, or relationships. I do agree that the person in the "fight" should be punished, whether they defend themselves or not. Only because in order for this "fight" to take place, both parties have to be a willing partisipant in the problem that arises BEFORE the physical fight takes place. Keep in mind, lots happen in school.

I knew a girl who got into a yelling match because another girl was with her boyfriend. So, things built up until one day my friend attacked the other girl. The other girl got off without even a warning, my friend suspended for 2 weeks. Mind you, the other girl "started" it by sleeping with the un named boyfriend.

Im not saying all situations are like this, but the one throwing the punch is usally NOT the one instigating the problem. It takes two to tango, so I do agree with the rules of ZERO-TOLERANCE. But 10 weeks is too extreme.

Reply

On another thought... Schools don't always have the time to monitor EVERYTHING that happens. People should realize, that unless they want to pay a lot more taxes to employ more officers, teachers, etc to babysit unruly kids, then they need to take some responsibility on themselves. Kids need to be taught not to start fights, or they will have a fight at home to deal with. A lot of bullies that I have run across and had to "beat up" for harrssing my friends, usually are the ones who have unruly parents, or parents that are not mature and not a good home life. Im not saying all... Im saying most.

Its not the school's job to babysit. Its the schools job to educate the ones who want to learn. No one can catch all fights, but this policy may make people think twice.

Reply

Ten weeks suspension! For everyone touched in a fight! Heaven help us! Why don't we just shut the school down?

I shudder to think what all these suspended teens are doing without supervision for ten weeks.

Punishing the victim? I remember high school too, and believe me, I did not instigate all the crap that happened to me. Unless getting a better grade which the teacher announced, or knowing how to speak grammatically, or saying "no thanks" to a puff on a marijuana joint, or speaking to someone your other friend doesn't like, is instigation. (And regardless of instigation, I do think it's fundamental to emphasize that violence is not acceptable except to defend against an ongoing physical attack.) Our school's rule was, if you did not hit back, you did not get punished - by the administration. (Your classmates might give you crap later, so you might want to lie and say you did hit back.) And punishment was in-school suspension whose duration depended on whether it was your first, second, etc. offense (first offense was three days). The attention this attracted from concerned / judgmental adults, coupled with the reduction in freedoms and the time alone to think, was usually enough to discourage a repeat performance. We did not have chaos at our school - just an occasional scrap between boys who were too impulsive or girls who were too competitive. Out-of-school suspensions were a last resort because the purpose of the school is to teach, not to alienate.

Reply

It is wrong to punish someone that hadn't tried to fight back unless they can prove provocation. If they did fight back, maybe a lesser suspension than the one that threw the first punch. Kids think everything can be solved by fighting. Personally I never got in a fight and think it's childish and just plain stupid to participate in them. What do they accomplish? You'll still have the same ill feelings towards the person after punching them a few times.

Dawn, a friend of mine got beat up for getting an A when the rest of her class got C's and threw off the grading curve. She didn't fight back. Should she have got suspended for being smarter than the rest of the kids in that class? It's not always BOTH people. Sometimes kids just don't like something about someone and that's how they deal with it, whether it be their style, how smart they are (or aren't), or who their friends are.

Reply

I have to say I agree more with in-school suspension than out of school. How many kids do we or did we know that were bummed out by out of school suspension? I think it would actually decrease the fights a bit if kids were to sit in a study hall room, and made to sit for the durartion of "suspension" only being able to do extra work, or catch up on work. Not even being able to read a book for fun unless no extra work can be given. Since detention happens all hours, put the kids in there. Boredom is a violence killer. Why let the kids sit at home with video games, phone, tv and snacks while parents are at work. Thats not punishment.

Reply

I strongly disagree with the claim that the person being attacked is not the one who starts it. Even in the example that was given the guy was the committed one, so he should have been the one attacked by the girl. LOL. And the girl certainly wouldnt deserve to be punished by the school for that offense.

I also agree with SKL people are attacked in high school just soley because of their grades, the way they speak or act, the shoes they wear... who they are friends with...

Strongly strongly disagree with the victim as the provoker claim.

Definately agree with the inschool suspension thing, though.

Reply

lol I honestly wrote this before SKL's comment showed up, just took forever to get to my email I guess

Reply

"If a kid gets suspended just for getting beaten up, what incentive is there to avoid fighting back?"

of course, violence is not the answer in all cases, but once someone is attacked, why do we want them to avoid fighting back?

i've been in my fair share of fights as a kid, but i never started one. i'd try to talk my way out or defuse the situation (and it does work...sometimes), but once that first punch was thrown, you better believe the second punch was thrown by me.

i think it's fairly dangerous to a kid's self-esteem and confidence to just sit there an "take it". it also makes them targets for further bullying because others know he/she won't fight back.

sure, the first line of defense is to avoid the situation. the second, defuse the situation you're already in. but, if all else fails, fight back!

Reply

I'm with you. Dont start it, but definately finish it. Dont just let yourself get stomped on... you'll be dead!

Reply

My daughter was bullied on the playground by 2 boys (she was in 4th grade at the time). She asked the teachers who were supervising for help. They sent the boys away, told her to stay away from them, and then continued to chat...

A few minutes later the boys came back and pushed my daughter down. She got up and pushed them away from her. Now the teachers took all of them to the office and my daughter was disciplined along with the boys - all because of the 'No Tolerance' rules.

Needless to say, we were NOT HAPPY and had an unscheduled 'visit' with the principal. All parties agreed that my daughter was not to blame but nothing could be changed because of 'no tolerance'. Just plain stupid if you ask me...

Reply

I don't agree that kids should be taught to fight back. In eighth grade, I was in a "fight" where another girl was punching my head against the bathroom mirror. Funny thing was, I felt no anger and no urge to hit back. I just blocked the punches as best I could. Spectators got irritated because it wasn't an interesting fight, and pretty soon the pounder started to feel silly and stopped. Afterwards I told the Principal that I had hit back, because I figured if only one of us got punished, I might have more hell to pay. After that, nobody ever bothered me again. I did not develop self-esteem issues. In fact, the pounder and I became sort of friends.

A similar thing happened when I was a couple years younger. My next-door-neighbor (a bit older than me) slapped my face, and my only reaction was to comment on how sad it was that she couldn't deal with her frustrations in a more mature way. She burst into tears, but after that, she treated me with real respect.

Similarly in life, I tend to roll with the punches (figuratively of course). Some of my friends think I'm too much of a wimp, but I have achieved a higher position and salary and more freedom in my job than most people, so I must be doing something right.

I think the reaction to an attack, like everything else, is an individual thing. I was always a mellow person who understood the attacker's insecurities and thought about consequences far into the future. I think kids who hit back are just more impulsive or insecure. But, having said that, I do feel that a significant punishment for hitting in self-defense is unwarranted, because it's a natural and understandable reaction for many people.

Reply