Suspended for "not following school instruction". Good for him.

[ImaginaryDay2]

-__-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5509701/Ohio-student-suspended-staying-class-walkouts.html

 

[NewCreation435]

How is not walking out a pro gun reaction? It doesn't necessarily mean that. It can just mean the kid wants to stay in school and didn't want to participate.

 

[Stravinsk]

How is not walking out a pro gun reaction? It doesn't necessarily mean that. It can just mean the kid wants to stay in school and didn't want to participate.

If the interview is to be believed, the student was presented with a binary choice:

A) Join the anti-gun violence group
B) Join the pro-gun violence group

In framing the situation this way, dishonest people seek to tip the balance in favor of their agenda, in this case forcing the false conclusion through the choice that if one is pro gun, then naturally one is pro initiatory violence such as we are told happened at the latest incident in Florida.

The student wanted to remain apart from either group, presumably because he is pro-gun but against using them to initiate violence. So option C was to not participate at all and stay in class.

 

[Lamb]

Strav points out accurately that there was no option C for the student who wanted to remain neutral. The student could have gone to the office to see though and it would have been fine. Being in a locked classroom after probably being told he couldn't was his downfall. He tried to choose the right thing but going to the Counselor's Office or Main Office would have been a better choice where they could keep track of a student.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The student did disobey the instruction given; specifically he did not join the protest which was one option open to him nor did he retire to the common area where the school instructed students who remained on campus to go and where they were supervised. Those students who for conscience sake or for other reasons decided not to participate in the protest were instructed to gather in the common area. No "option C" was needed. No school official claimed that retiring to the common area made one "pro gun violence". That is what the student says he interpreted retiring to the common area meant. No documentation and no verbal confirmation that retiring to the common area meant support for gun violence is present in the story nor in the video only the student's interpretation makes that claim. The student appears to be the one who made the suspension letter available online and he is the one (with apparent parental support) who has made the issue political by presenting the situation as if he had no choice but to disobey because he wanted to be neutral. The story is self evident publicity seeking on his part.

 

[hedrick]

I read a detailed article in the Washington Post. There are a couple of interesting things.

First, he wasn't against the protest. He felt that he shouldn't be made to take sides on a political issue.

But the point I noticed in quotations from the school is that they had effectively disarmed the protest. It was really an organized school function, and the school said it wasn't political: it was in memorial for the students' deaths. That entirely missed the point of the protest.

I have concerns about how a lot of schools handled this. The middle school that my Sunday School kids go to organized the protest. A few kids left the school rather than participating in the official protest, because it didn't feel like a protest to them. I am sympathetic. Civil disobedience includes accepting the consequences of your disobedience. The civil rights movement involved people going to jail. I think the kid who got paddled for cutting class was one of the few who actually engaged in civil disobedience. Making the kids write an essay justifying their position if they want to avoid consequences seems to me like a good alternative, but even that has its disadvantages.

 

[Krissy Cakes]

What is this world coming to?

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

From how I read it, Hedrick is correct. There were essentially two 'school sanctioned' choices (under the guise of supervision) - walk out and take side "A" under school supervision, or don't walk out, but gather in another common area (also under supervision), thus taking side "B". Another alternative wasn't even considered, except by one student who chose to think for himself, just like everyone else.
But, you know, adolescents aren't supposed to do that...

 

[tango]

How is not walking out a pro gun reaction? It doesn't necessarily mean that. It can just mean the kid wants to stay in school and didn't want to participate.

It's the kind of "reasoning" (I use the word in the loosest possible context) that if you don't actively support Doing Something (when "Something" is unspecified) then it logically follows that you're in favor of kids being gunned down in schools.

It's like the reasoning that says "your right to own an AR-15 doesn't beat my right to live", as if you owning an AR-15 would inevitably lead to my death. It ignores the basic reality that of the 8,000,000 or so AR-15 style rifles out there only a miniscule proportion are used for anything unlawful. You might as well say "your right to drive doesn't beat my right to live" given that, on occasion, a vehicle is used as a murder weapon.

The logic is so full of holes it's not funny but trying to explain that to the people who push it is an exercise in futility.