If a nine-year-old says he's going to make a classmate disappear with his magic ring, as inspired by having watched The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies the weekend before, the obvious thing a school administrator should do is:
A. Applaud the child for having such imagination.
B. Consider some cross-grade academic program about Tolkien and Middle-Earth to inspire kids to read and create their own fantasy worlds.
C. Send a note home to the parents expressing concern over their taking a nine-year-old to a PG-13 movie.
D. Call it a threat to the other student's safety and suspend the obvious follower of Sauron.
Sigh.
(h/t +Boing Boing)
Parent: Fourth-grader suspended after using magic from ‘The Hobbit’
A Kermit parent said his fourth-grade student was suspended Friday for allegedly making a terroristic threat.
stupid PC assholes who won't let kids be kids
Please don't conflate "bad teaching" with "requirement that everyone be accorded due respect" under the banner of "PC". They are distinct issues; one is negative and should be addressed, and one is positive and should be nurtured and encouraged.
not really. PC has ruined so many things
E. Say how naughty the parents are because that's rated 12A. Then congratulate the child for being able to sit still for so long.
Oh, hang on. The child was suspended for USING magic. I had no idea that was a thing.
+Tony Morton Can you name three?
+Colm Buckley Political Correctness has nothing to do with "respect". It's a tool used to stifle not only free expression (like it or not),but to also quiet dissenting opinions.
We have freedom of speech, whether we agree with that speech, or not. To encourage "political correctness" is to discourage that freedom.
+Mark Means I don't think that's the case. It's a term which has been sullied and dragged into disrepute by those who feel threatened by it. Like everything else, it has sometimes been abused, or used in inappropriate contexts, but at its root it is simply an attempt to ensure that people are aware of the privileges and biases inherent in their position and language.
I fully support your freedom of speech; you are at liberty to say virtually whatever you want in whatever forum you want. I have a corresponding freedom to ascribe various attributes to you on foot of that speech, including the attributes of privilege, prejudice and bias should your speech deserve it. You can use your freedom of speech to denigrate or hurt others if you like; it doesn't make it right.
+Colm Buckley I don't agree. At it's root, it's a method to silence speech that certain people don't agree with, plain and simple.
Just ask anyone who has lost their job over a tweet or something they posted to social media or said in an interview.
Just a few examples:
http://timtyler.org/political_correctness/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-army-deletes-tweet-after-accusations-of-racism-only-to-provoke-more-anger-10016273.html
http://www.commdiginews.com/politics-2/cnns-chris-cuomo-and-the-perfectly-political-correct-33168/
not to mention stealing kid's childhoods and stifling imaginations
Remember, this is Texas, whose Lege wants to pass a law allowing teachers to shoot students if they pose a threat (whether bodily harm or a threat to school property). It’s H.B. 868 – so, I guess the little boy and his family should consider themselves lucky.
+Mark Means I believe you are incorrect, but I doubt I'll be able to convince you of this. Most of the examples you give are highly biased and/or come from a viewpoint which could be represented as privileged and highly likely to be threatened by "PC". You're attacking a strawman.
https://theangryblackwoman.wordpress.com/2007/04/12/in-defense-of-political-correctness/ is a good discussion of the topic; the Wikipedia entry also alludes to the controversy.
The short version is that, when you hear the term "PC", you're almost definitely hearing about some cartoonish inflation of the original intent of the initiative. The term itself is now almost exclusively used as a strawman by the reactionary Right to continue to justify bigotry and prejudice.
+Tony Morton It's bad teaching which does that; the article posted here has nothing to do with "political correctness".
I don't see anything "cartoonish" in the examples I listed, but whatever.
" The term itself is now almost exclusively used as a strawman by the reactionary Right to continue to justify bigotry and prejudice."
Uhh…yeah..o.k.
+Dave Hill The correct answer is E. None of the above. If the child believes that the One Ring can make another child disappear, then he has failed to grasp the nature of its capabilities.
He needs to either be taken to the movie again, or better yet, maybe his parents can read the books to him (I did.)
Such wrongness of geekdom can not be tolerated.
I think it was the teacher who misunderstood the use of the word "disappear." The ring would only make the other child invisible, not eradicate him.
In my day (the old geezer whined), kids were encouraged to use their imaginations. Looks like them days is long gone.
I'm pretty sure that the attitude of this teacher or school is exceptionally bad, and far from the norm. My kids' teachers are great at encouraging their imaginations and play activities.
I'll note a couple of things (since I wasn't at keyboard last night during all the discussion):
1. This is not just a matter of the teacher in question, but of the administrators who backed them up, and likely by a district-mandated "zero tolerance" policy for anything that someone thinks resembles threats of violence.
It is also, to that end, not a case of Political Correctness.
2. +Greg Stockton, yes, the kid's misunderstanding of how the One Ring works almost drew comment from me, except that the story is being related 2nd or 3rd hand, by at least one layer of journalist, so it's difficult to say exactly what the kid said. He might have even meant that if his classmate put on the ring, he'd disappear, which would be quite accurate.
However, if he said that the One Ring (or a re-imagined variant of same) could make someone disappear, then either he was speaking incorrectly, or else highly metaphorically.
3. The problem with Political Correctness as a term is that it is, itself, so overcharged a word that to use it triggers emotional reactions beyond its meaning. Sometimes it is, as a process and concept, absconded with by people who want to shut down conversations out of faux sensitivity, and also by [ep[;e wanting to shut down conversations by simply labeling something as being "PC" and therefore not worthy of consideration.
A large portion of PC (in a positive sense) is consideration of one's words (though it's not strictly limited to words), the assumptions of normalcy and privilege behind them, and how they might be interpreted (or misinterpreted) by others. It can be sometimes look silly, but it can also sometimes look a lot like politeness and civility. Both of which can also be used to "shut down" uncomfortable conversation, but both of which are also critical to a world not dominated by shouting and cudgels.
PC has become a very loaded term, partly because, yes, there are those people who use it as excuse to shut down debate they don’t agree with. I think a lot of it is ‘white guilt. The term ‘Politically Correct’ is a nonsense phrase anyway. Exactly what does that pairing mean?
I think the best way to summarise how to act is the words of Australian Comedian Adam Hills on “The Last Leg”. ‘Don’t be a dick!’
Is what you about to say something that is unjustified, and would annoy you if it was said about you? Then you are probably about to be a dick, and you should reconsider if you need to say it. Is what you are about to say making unfair reference to something the person has no control over (such as skin colour)? Is the comment relevant and true? There is a difference between saying “Blind people are freaks and should be locked away”, and, during a discussion on equal rights for disabled people countering the phrase “Blind people should have ALL the rights of the sighted” with “Even driving?”
I note from the article that he had also been reprimanded for referring to another pupils skin colour. The kid is 9- that would be the ideal opportunity for a discussion about race and racism. Obviously we don’t know what was said- but why not take the opportunity to instill in a young mind certain values. If he had said “why are you dark brown”, that is an opportunity to explain why different races look different, and we are all the same underneath. If it was a racial epithet, it is unlikely something he understands, more likely something he has heard without knowing the background, and thus a ready made civics lesson waiting. (Yes I know – Texas, the twin evils of evolution and rebellion come in to play)