Are you sure that wasn't from the Onion? I disagreed with each and every word that judge said, and if I ran that school I would defy the injunction and suspend that idiot anyway. It is a private school dealing with minors, if the kid doesn't like the rules, he should go elsewhere. Beyond the quoting of effing musicals, that has to be one of the dumbest decisions everywhere. That judge probably has a mullet too, just so his family can periodically use it to yank his head out of his ass so he can eat.
The peculiarity of a judge quoting song lyrics aside, to suggest that a student is an "idiot" for making the argument that his hair length is a personal, not a school, matter is the worst sort non-intellectual school yard bully response. Conservatism puports to be the ideology of personal freedom in the face of institutional attempts at control; or perhaps that is just for men with short hair? In both public and private schools, it would seem that issues such as guns, drugs, and student apathy should be considered much more distracting, and crucial, than whether any student adopts a particular hair style (albeit a particularly ugly one in this case).
Funny, I thought conservatism had something to do with conserving traditions, like, for example, private institutions having the right to lay out rules to be followed within those institutions by those who voluntarily join those institutions. Along those same lines, I think that teenagers who don't know a damn thing need to learn that life is not always about doing what they feel is right or good. One of the reasons parents send their kids to private schools is that so that they are exposed to a little more discipline. And I'm willing to bet that private schools that draw the line at things like hair and skirt length have much less of a problem with "guns, drugs, and student apathy." So they can spend more time on that thing that schools are supposed to do, oh what's it called...? Oh yeah, educate.
Also, I'm pretty sure that modern American conservatism has everything to do with freedom from too much government control, while modern American liberalism is about government protecting "personal freedom in the face of institutional attempts at control" when those institutions are private. Libertarians want freedom from all types of control, public or private. I am not, and have never claimed to be, a libertarian. So, in fact, though I am far from a doctrinaire conservative, my comments do not violate any conservative principles I may hold as a man with short hair. But nice try.
Not all traditions make sense or are correct. Clearly, there is a difference between hair length and such matters, but Jim Crow was once a tradition, and so was keeping women from voting. "Tradition" does not necessarily mean "justified." Dear God, next women will want to be wearing PANTS.
"teenagers who don't know a damn thing need to learn that life is not always about doing what they feel is right or good" Sure. But we are talking about HAIR not pre-marital sex without birth control or protection from STDs. Of all of the nasty things modern teenagers could be doing, ARE doing, hair length is hardly a worthwhile concern.
'I'm willing to bet that private schools that draw the line at things like hair and skirt length have much less of a problem with 'guns, drugs, and student apathy.'" Really? There's a connection between long hair and the likelihood that a student will carry a gun or be interested in algebra? The particular student in question seems to undermine this argument, as he is an honor student.
Private schools have fewer problems because most of the students that attend them come from homes with parents who take a great deal of interest in their chidren's education. The number one problem with public education starts at the homes of many, many parents, not with the men and women who accept low pay and lower prestige (more and more with great risk to their own bodily safety) to work their tails off trying to inspire students to learn. Not to mention funding issues at public schools, whose taxpayers want schools to solve every personal and societal problem students might encounter, but only if they can do so without costing what an education is actually worth.
What schools are supposed to do? "Oh yeah, educate." Precisely. Spending valuable time and money chasing down a teenager who dared to grow his hair in a fashion that some school officials did not appreciate comes at the cost of educating students.
Ahh, the brave Anonymous made an absurd reductionist argument about conservatism, got called out on it, so then makes rather pathetic attempts to put words in other people's mouths and change the subject.
"Clearly, there is a difference between hair length and such matters, but Jim Crow was once a tradition, and so was keeping women from voting. "Tradition" does not necessarily mean "justified." Dear God, next women will want to be wearing PANTS." I am not going to be lectured to about Jim Crow and women's suffrage and women wearing pants, especially by an anonymous writer who clearly knows nothing about me and my opinions on those topics. This type of inane arguing style would be like a conservative taking a statement by a liberal who only says they want a greater redistribution of wealth to an absurd extreme: "Oh, you do, really? That's what the Soviets did, and the Communist Chinese. Not all "redistribution" is "fair." Dear God, next thing you'll send the middle classes to the gulags."
Then there is the topic changing. The key issue here is that private schools are private institutions that are attended voluntarily by their students. Why would parents send their kids to private schools? The first post from anonymous (I'm assuming it is the same person, if not, I apologize) said, "In both public and private schools, it would seem that issues such as guns, drugs, and student apathy should be considered much more distracting, and crucial, than whether any student adopts a particular hair style...." But I pointed out that public and private schools do not have to deal with these problems to the same degree. So the second post from anonymous changed its tune, "Private schools have fewer problems because most of the students that attend them come from homes with parents who take a great deal of interest in their chidren's education." Exactly. Which is why they send them to private schools where there are stricter rules. These issues are all connected.
Let me explain why. "Spending valuable time and money chasing down a teenager who dared to grow his hair in a fashion that some school officials did not appreciate comes at the cost of educating students." (By the way, it is a private school, and unless you are a parent spending money to pay for that school then it is none of your business what it costs.) But let's take the next logical steps in this type of thinking. How about if the student is not wearing the proper school uniform (if they have one)? Come on, they are just clothes--what a waste of time and money. How about if a couple of students are smoking cigarettes in the bathroom? It's just tobacco. They are just being kids, leave them alone. How about if some students are smoking weed behind the school? That's a little more serious, but we don't want to spend too much of the school's resources on such a problem. Hey, every kid tries it. And look, one of them is an honor student. Let's let them know we understand, but try to encourage them not to get too caught up in that stuff. And so on...
The point is that discipline has to start somewhere. Parents send their kids to private schools because they care. They care about education, they care about rules, and they care about discipline, and they know private schools generally provide more of all three. And kids know it and appreciate it, even if they superficially and temporarily resent it. That is why many teenagers constantly try to find where and when people in authority will say "no," because it shows that someone cares.
If that kid and his parents do not like where that private school says no, then they should leave that school. The real waste of resources came from those idiots using up taxpayer money to take the issue to the courts. It is none of the government's business, and that clearly inept judge should have known better.
That's a nice declaration, but how about some evidence? examples? You know, the specifics that no doubt will prove that this judge's decision goes, with no compelling reasons, far beyond what the government has done concerning rules in private institutions.
8 comments:
Are you sure that wasn't from the Onion? I disagreed with each and every word that judge said, and if I ran that school I would defy the injunction and suspend that idiot anyway. It is a private school dealing with minors, if the kid doesn't like the rules, he should go elsewhere. Beyond the quoting of effing musicals, that has to be one of the dumbest decisions everywhere. That judge probably has a mullet too, just so his family can periodically use it to yank his head out of his ass so he can eat.
The peculiarity of a judge quoting song lyrics aside, to suggest that a student is an "idiot" for making the argument that his hair length is a personal, not a school, matter is the worst sort non-intellectual school yard bully response. Conservatism puports to be the ideology of personal freedom in the face of institutional attempts at control; or perhaps that is just for men with short hair? In both public and private schools, it would seem that issues such as guns, drugs, and student apathy should be considered much more distracting, and crucial, than whether any student adopts a particular hair style (albeit a particularly ugly one in this case).
Lighten up.
Funny, I thought conservatism had something to do with conserving traditions, like, for example, private institutions having the right to lay out rules to be followed within those institutions by those who voluntarily join those institutions. Along those same lines, I think that teenagers who don't know a damn thing need to learn that life is not always about doing what they feel is right or good. One of the reasons parents send their kids to private schools is that so that they are exposed to a little more discipline. And I'm willing to bet that private schools that draw the line at things like hair and skirt length have much less of a problem with "guns, drugs, and student apathy." So they can spend more time on that thing that schools are supposed to do, oh what's it called...? Oh yeah, educate.
Also, I'm pretty sure that modern American conservatism has everything to do with freedom from too much government control, while modern American liberalism is about government protecting "personal freedom in the face of institutional attempts at control" when those institutions are private. Libertarians want freedom from all types of control, public or private. I am not, and have never claimed to be, a libertarian. So, in fact, though I am far from a doctrinaire conservative, my comments do not violate any conservative principles I may hold as a man with short hair. But nice try.
Not all traditions make sense or are correct. Clearly, there is a difference between hair length and such matters, but Jim Crow was once a tradition, and so was keeping women from voting. "Tradition" does not necessarily mean "justified." Dear God, next women will want to be wearing PANTS.
"teenagers who don't know a damn thing need to learn that life is not always about doing what they feel is right or good" Sure. But we are talking about HAIR not pre-marital sex without birth control or protection from STDs. Of all of the nasty things modern teenagers could be doing, ARE doing, hair length is hardly a worthwhile concern.
'I'm willing to bet that private schools that draw the line at things like hair and skirt length have much less of a problem with 'guns, drugs, and student apathy.'" Really? There's a connection between long hair and the likelihood that a student will carry a gun or be interested in algebra? The particular student in question seems to undermine this argument, as he is an honor student.
Private schools have fewer problems because most of the students that attend them come from homes with parents who take a great deal of interest in their chidren's education. The number one problem with public education starts at the homes of many, many parents, not with the men and women who accept low pay and lower prestige (more and more with great risk to their own bodily safety) to work their tails off trying to inspire students to learn. Not to mention funding issues at public schools, whose taxpayers want schools to solve every personal and societal problem students might encounter, but only if they can do so without costing what an education is actually worth.
What schools are supposed to do? "Oh yeah, educate." Precisely. Spending valuable time and money chasing down a teenager who dared to grow his hair in a fashion that some school officials did not appreciate comes at the cost of educating students.
So. Nice try to you.
Long live the long hairs!!
Ahh, the brave Anonymous made an absurd reductionist argument about conservatism, got called out on it, so then makes rather pathetic attempts to put words in other people's mouths and change the subject.
"Clearly, there is a difference between hair length and such matters, but Jim Crow was once a tradition, and so was keeping women from voting. "Tradition" does not necessarily mean "justified." Dear God, next women will want to be wearing PANTS." I am not going to be lectured to about Jim Crow and women's suffrage and women wearing pants, especially by an anonymous writer who clearly knows nothing about me and my opinions on those topics. This type of inane arguing style would be like a conservative taking a statement by a liberal who only says they want a greater redistribution of wealth to an absurd extreme: "Oh, you do, really? That's what the Soviets did, and the Communist Chinese. Not all "redistribution" is "fair." Dear God, next thing you'll send the middle classes to the gulags."
Then there is the topic changing. The key issue here is that private schools are private institutions that are attended voluntarily by their students. Why would parents send their kids to private schools? The first post from anonymous (I'm assuming it is the same person, if not, I apologize) said, "In both public and private schools, it would seem that issues such as guns, drugs, and student apathy should be considered much more distracting, and crucial, than whether any student adopts a particular hair style...." But I pointed out that public and private schools do not have to deal with these problems to the same degree. So the second post from anonymous changed its tune, "Private schools have fewer problems because most of the students that attend them come from homes with parents who take a great deal of interest in their chidren's education." Exactly. Which is why they send them to private schools where there are stricter rules. These issues are all connected.
Let me explain why. "Spending valuable time and money chasing down a teenager who dared to grow his hair in a fashion that some school officials did not appreciate comes at the cost of educating students." (By the way, it is a private school, and unless you are a parent spending money to pay for that school then it is none of your business what it costs.) But let's take the next logical steps in this type of thinking. How about if the student is not wearing the proper school uniform (if they have one)? Come on, they are just clothes--what a waste of time and money. How about if a couple of students are smoking cigarettes in the bathroom? It's just tobacco. They are just being kids, leave them alone. How about if some students are smoking weed behind the school? That's a little more serious, but we don't want to spend too much of the school's resources on such a problem. Hey, every kid tries it. And look, one of them is an honor student. Let's let them know we understand, but try to encourage them not to get too caught up in that stuff. And so on...
The point is that discipline has to start somewhere. Parents send their kids to private schools because they care. They care about education, they care about rules, and they care about discipline, and they know private schools generally provide more of all three. And kids know it and appreciate it, even if they superficially and temporarily resent it. That is why many teenagers constantly try to find where and when people in authority will say "no," because it shows that someone cares.
If that kid and his parents do not like where that private school says no, then they should leave that school. The real waste of resources came from those idiots using up taxpayer money to take the issue to the courts. It is none of the government's business, and that clearly inept judge should have known better.
Actually, by now there is a long, long *tradition* of public courts making decisions that affect private schools.
That's a nice declaration, but how about some evidence? examples? You know, the specifics that no doubt will prove that this judge's decision goes, with no compelling reasons, far beyond what the government has done concerning rules in private institutions.
Post a Comment