In Salem (our state capital) students in a high school class were asked to bring in photos of past graduates from the high school doing whatever they now did for a living. One girl brought a picture of her brother who is now serving in the Marines fighting in Iraq.
The girl was told that the school would not allow her to display the picture because there are guns in the picture. Citing the schools zero gun policy, the principal declared that she couldn't "allow" such a picture. To quote the principal, "What message am I sending to my students if I post that picture?" - funny looking at the schools printed policy, pictures of guns are not addressed (link to story here).
The principal is so committed to her idea of what the policy includes that she has forbidden members of a gun club the right to put embroiedered emblames of a rifle on their letterman jackets. It was pointed out to the principal that the school mascot is shown holding a sword, which prompted her to mention that the school might have to revisit that situation.
Below is the original photo - after an outcry by the public, the school offered to use a computer to take the weapon out of the picture; and deemed it acceptable by school standards if the girl's family would agree to that. The family did not agree.
Finally as the story was gaining press, the school asked if there were possibly some other photos of the marine that they could use. The school ended up accepting, without doctoring, the photo I've posted below. Even though there is a weapon in this picture too, the district superintendent stepped in and said that since the weapon wasn't the focal point of the picture, it was acceptable (wanna bet the principal is still unhappy about it?).
Link to the updated story here - and tell me that you don't think the new picture was allowed because of public pressure.
I know some folks don't like the war, I know some folks don't like guns, how far do you take/press your views? Was the principal correct? Was the second picture allowed because of public pressure?
Your comments are welcome.
More Later
18 comments:
No one other than a crazy person likes war. Maybe your sorry principal should stop for a moment to realize it was the blood of armed warriors that gave her the freedom to act like an utter ass!
What about past graduates who are police officers or security guards or other military personnel who are not currently stationed in a war zone? I can't help but think that this has nothing to do with guns being pictured but politics. Just a hunch . . .
This is so off the wall that I don't have one of my usual, tart and sarcastic remarks!
WTF???
Further proof that "Zero Tolerance" really means "Zero Sense."
And we wonder why our students are falling farther and farther the rest of the industrialized nations.
To answer your question, I think actually banning the picture was a bit over the top.
Having said that, maybe there can be a LITTLE bit of perspective applied to this situation?
A national outcry because a school principal thought a picture glorifying guns was inappropriate?
SO WHAT?????????
Looks like there are people out there willing to find anything and everything to use as stick to beat educators with. Perhaps to the word "educators" we can also add the word "liberals"????
Would a high school principal that goes out of their way to improve facilities in their school get similar headlines? You are telling me out of the thousands and thousands of schools ALL over America, there isn't even ONE that deserves a bit of merit?
All this bellyaching does is remind your kids that it's ok to have little or no respect for those charged with educating them.
This IMHO is a big fat non-story.
JL - Your comments strike me as odd. Yes, certainly there are schools that do well, there are principals who help their schools. The ones that do a good job are usually rewarded with bonuses, tenure, job security. Ones that do an exceptional job get offers for more money in even better schools. That is usually how competant principals and teachers are rewarded. There isn't a huge reason to write about them because the above 'rewards' tend to pat those teachers on the back AND because we hope, pray and hire teachers and principals with the above expectations (of excellence). We also realize that many teachers and principals may not come up to that level, we accept it as long as they are competant, they keep their jobs.
What this principal did was, in a word, stupid. Like Schott said, "Zero tolerance meant zero sense." Do YOU (JL) believe there is harm in a child seeing a picture of a gun?
In America, there is a saying, "One 'Aw Crap', wipes out one hundred 'Atta Boys'." Again, we want excellence, we allow mediocre, and we get spun up with stupidity. Not only was the principal stupid in her stand, but when the stupidity is pointed out and she hunkers down and tries to defend her stupid stand - then it becomes a story.
Thanks, everyone, for the discussion.
Of COURSE my comments strike you as odd, since I don't agree with you!
So one principal in Oregon does a stupid thing and it "wipes out" as you claim all the good hard dedicated work done by principals across the nation?
The words "storm" and "teacup" spring to mind.
When it comes to receiving rewards and promotions for achievements, I think you are bordering on being condescending with your explanation of remuneration of success. I know how promotions work. I was referring to my earlier point that this one incident is being used as an excuse, and a feeble one at that, to attack the teaching profession as a whole, a point which I note you do not address with your reply.
And to answer your other question, there's not much you can't show kids, so long as they are put in context. The picture that was banned gives the impression that it's cool to carry a gun. I still don't think that it should have been banned, but it does give that impression, it's hard to deny.
Proper perspective here:
Pictures of gangsta rappers, gang-bangers and street thugs brandishing illegal firearms, accompanying a newly released cd full of tracks about the "thug life" is a bad signal to kids and glorifies violence.
U.S. Military soldiers, in uniform, proudly holding their military issue weaponry, of which they are professionally trained to use and only use in times of combat to protect our country is an excellent signal to send to our children.
Let common sense prevail here. This principal is wrong-headed, only a politically correct idiot would see such a photo as glorifying guns rather than an example of real heroes in our military.
Lets not make excuses for stupidity.
But it IS cool to carry a gun. I'm carry one right now!
A lot of these "gangsta rappers, gang-bangers and street thugs brandishing illegal firearms" that Mr Jerry E McClellan Sr speaks of actually carry LEGAL firearms. I take it they're ok?
And as for "U.S. Military soldiers, in uniform, proudly holding their military issue weaponry, of which they are professionally trained to use and only use in times of combat to protect our country is an excellent signal to send to our children.", I don't even know where to begin dealing with the holes in that statement.
I must have missed the news report which said the US was going into Iraq "to protect their country"- I was under the impression it was to free the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam's regime and introduce democracy.
But then again, I think the picture glorifies guns, so I must be a politically correct idiot, mustn't I???
I still say this whole thing has been (pardon the pun) blown out of all proportions in a pathetic attempt to slag off liberal values.
JL - Aw, I like you, but I'm thinking you may have backed yourself into a corner that is hard to get out of.
Did my posting slam all teachers? I don't think so. Did it slam all principals? I think not. Did it even say that this principal was bad? No, she was just plain wrong in this case. She took a school policy and applied a broad brush interpetation to it. Even that can and does happen to the best of us. Again, I say her biggest mistake was attempting to defend her bad interpetation.
You believe the picture glorifies guns? Last time I looked, THE MAIN purpose the marines exist involves guns. No one has ever mistaken the US Marines for the US Peace Corp, nor should they. Guns are the 'tools of the trade' for marines, no different than a wrench being the 'tool of trade' for a plumber.
You've decided that it's a liberal issue, but I would have objected if the principal had insisted that each and every picture needed to have the American flag in the background. The assignment didn't need to have political overtones to it, the principal was the one who instilled it. Does she deserve to be fired over it? No, at least not on that one incident alone; but she does need to see where and how she was wrong. If I were the superintendent, if the principal couldn't get the picture, I'd put it on her permanent record. If she did understand the corner that she backed herself into, we'd have a talk and she'd be on her way.
Just the opinion of an ArchAngel.
"But then again, I think the picture glorifies guns, so I must be a politically correct idiot, mustn't I???"
If the politically correct shoe fits...
"I must have missed the news report which said the US was going into Iraq "to protect their country"- I was under the impression it was to free the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam's regime and introduce democracy."
You must have sir given that the impetus for going into Iraq was the attack on U.S. soil by terrorist. The same type of terrorists that were supported by Saddam Hussein. As even my 9 year old son was able to conclude for himself, going into Iraq, spreading democracy in the very places that spawn hatred and anger towards the U.S., ultimately protects the U.S.
Once again, let common sense prevail.
MtAA -
I have not backed myself into any corner, sir.
I actually agreed with your view that the banning of the picture was unnecessary.
I merely questioned the real importance of this whole issue in the first place.
I am glad to see, however, that you yourself have backed off to the extent that you feel the principal in question should not lose her job. Maybe if you had stated this in your original post I would not have felt so compelled to respond.
Superintendants, like any bosses, have been known to react rather unfavorably to negative publicity.
It is also interesting that you NOW claim "I would have objected if the principal had insisted that each and every picture needed to have the American flag in the background." This is very easy to say at this stage of the debate, isn't it?
You have posted several times attacking school boards and teachers unions etc etc. Taking the post on its own, of course it is not an attack on educators as a whole. Taking your entire blog into account, however, one sees it in a different light.
I generally stand by my assertions until presnted with justifiable evidence to the contrary, and as yet I have seen no such thing.
As for Mr McClellan Sr, there is no need to go back down the road of the rights and wrongs of going into Iraq, for it is yet another issue where the two sides will never see eye to eye.
I do, however, find it fascinating that right wingers constantly feel the need to use the opinions of young minors, who are only echoing what they hear discussed around them, as a means to prove their point. I somehow doubt you would accept my 10-year-old daughter's assertion that George W Bush is a war-monger! She worked that out herself too!
By the way Mr McClelland Sr;
"U.S. Military soldiers, in uniform, proudly holding their military issue weaponry"
FYI...look at the original pic please...one of them is not in uniform...
Uh, JL - the one on the right hand side (as you look at the picture) IS in uniform.
To defend Michael for a second, I don't think he has ever degraded the teaching profession in his posts. He mainly points out how ludicris the bureaucracy surrounding it is. In fact, this is what I interpret this post to be about. What if the assignment were however, to bring a picture of someone you perceived as a hero or an inspiration and that person brought a photo of Jesus Christ? Would the same superintendant ban it? All the kid did was do an assignment. Obviously most schools have a rule against it yet we let the kids out for holiday breaks when it truly is for Christmas and Easter.
What's the difference between a hero holding a gun and that?
I am blathering again...
Uh, MtAA, again I show you the phrase :
"U.S. Military soldierS, in uniform, proudly holding their military issue weaponry" Not my words!
According to this statement, the wearing of the uniform somehow justifies the holding of the gun. All I was doing was point out that one of soldiers in question did not meet this crtierion.
And to Steve, one does not have to degrade a profession to attack it. I have been reading Michael's excellent blog for several weeks now, and he frequently makes references to the vagaries of his state's education system. Even his most recent post suggests that all the schools do is constanly beg for more and more money which they then appear to squander. I think my assertions stand up pretty well given these facts.
I just think someone needs to be fighting for their corner!
oh... ok
Post a Comment