School bans all form of touching—including high-fives.

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
BoMac

BoMac

Self-righteous bullshitter
Joined
Aug 2, 2000
Messages
16,897
Location
Soviet Canuckistan — Socialist paradise
School bans all forms of touching—including high-fives.

No-touching policy at Virgiania school forbids student hugs, high-fives

Mon Jun 18, 5:56 PM

VIENNA, Va. (AP) - A show of affection almost landed a teenage boy in detention.

Hugging was 13-year-old Hal Beaulieu's crime when he sat next to his girlfriend at lunch a few months ago and put his arm around her shoulder. He was let off with a warning, but the cost of a repeat offence could be detention.

A rule against physical contact at Kilmer Middle School, about 20 kilometres west of Washington, is so strict that students can be sent to the principal's office for hugging, holding hands or even high-fiving.

"I think hugging is a good thing," said Hal, a seventh-grader. "I put my arm around her. It was like for 15 seconds. I didn't think it would be a big deal."

Unlike some schools, which ban fighting or inappropriate touching, Kilmer Middle School bans all touching.

But that doesn't seem necessary to Hal and his parents. They've sent a letter asking the county school board to review the rule.

But at a school of 1,100 students that was meant to accommodate 850, school officials think touching can turn into a big deal. They've seen pokes lead to fights, gang signs in the form of handshakes and girls who are uncomfortable being hugged but embarrassed to say anything.

"You get into shades of grey, " Kilmer Principal Deborah Hernandez said. "The kids say, 'If he can high-five, then I can do this.' "

Hernandez said the no-touching rule is meant to ensure that students are comfortable and that crowded hallways and lunchrooms stay safe. She said school officials are allowed to use their judgment in enforcing the rule. Typically, only repeat offenders are reprimanded.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Wow, that it really had to come to this. What happened to trust these days, people? :slant:

I mean I'm sure that a lot of bad things happen at schools, but this has just gone too far. Children just can't be children anymore.
 
Well it does say that officials are allowed to use their judgment in enforcing it. I can see how touching could lead to problems, and how some kids don't want to be touched but are afraid to say it. As long as it's wanted and welcome hugging is good for you- there's something sad and sort of creepy about not being allowed to touch. Most kids know where the line is and what's appropriate if they've been raised to know that. But kids will be kids sometimes and you don't want the touching to get to the level of harassment-or sex in class :wink:
 
OH MY GOD.

I can't even imagine all of the fuss I'd be making about this if it was a school near me. How shit like this can FLY in some places, I have no idea.
 
They did this in my school too! My kids were outraged. My kids and their friends hug alot, pat each other on the back etc. I think its absurd.

Instead of teaching kids not to hit or punch or push, it's easier for them to just say no touching at all. :eyebrow:
 
NO TOUCHING!

300px-Georgebluthsr.JPG
 
And yet nobody's bothered to address the reasons WHY this particular school has chosen this particular policy? I'm not saying I agree with it, but it's quite obvious from the article that the school didn't arbitrarily come up with some draconian policy just to demonstrate their totalitarian power.

I guess as a teacher I understand where policies like this can come from as well as recoginizing the potential for foolish enforcement.
 
maycocksean said:
And yet nobody's bothered to address the reasons WHY this particular school has chosen this particular policy? I'm not saying I agree with it, but it's quite obvious from the article that the school didn't arbitrarily come up with some draconian policy just to demonstrate their totalitarian power.

I guess as a teacher I understand where policies like this can come from as well as recoginizing the potential for foolish enforcement.
Click to expand...

Before I could address why they've done this, I'd need to know what other measures to address the problem were exhausted first.
 
joyfulgirl said:


Before I could address why they've done this, I'd need to know what other measures to address the problem were exhausted first.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. But we could go ahead and make some suggestions as to what measures might be taken instead to deal with the issues.

I dunno. . .I'm just not yet fully convinced that this incident is worthy of our outrage. At my school we generally discourage boy/girl touching and PDA especially among the older students. If I see one of the couples putting their arms around each other or leaning on each other, I'll just simply say "Hey guys let's give each other some space" and that's about it. The kids don't make an issue of it and neither do I. I was about to comment that I wouldn't handle it as harshly as this school did and then went back read the article and found the boy was just given a warning. I would find a student and his/her parents wanting to make a case out of such an approach frustrating, annoying, and waste of all of our time. My feeling is that the kids are at school, they're here to learn--they're not on a date. I talk a lot about my students carrying themselves "professionally." (We're talking middle school and high school age students). And it's necessary--when we go on field trips I have to tell the kids not to lie down in public, or hang all over each other (and of course not run around wildly) and I explain that there's nothing wrong with any of that behavior. It's just that we're in a "professional" setting and it's not "professional behavior."
 
An absolute fucking joke - but the inevitable result of the PC universe that some on here propagandise in favour of.

This is the result of the extreme left wing of the Democrat Party inveigling their ideology into public life.

Essentially, it's socialism by another name.
 
maycocksean said:
I talk a lot about my students carrying themselves "professionally." (We're talking middle school and high school age students). And it's necessary--when we go on field trips I have to tell the kids not to lie down in public, or hang all over each other (and of course not run around wildly) and I explain that there's nothing wrong with any of that behavior. It's just that we're in a "professional" setting and it's not "professional behavior."
Click to expand...

It seems to me that this form of schooling will lead to the development of well-schooled, "well-mannered" robots.

I wouldn't want my kids brought up in that way.
 
financeguy said:


It seems to me that this form of schooling will lead to the development of well-schooled, "well-mannered" robots.

I wouldn't want my kids brought up in that way.
Click to expand...

Oh good grief.

He's talking about having the kids behave in a certain way while on field trips. What's wrong with letting children know that here is a time and a place and that in certain situations, a certain code for behaviour is expected. This is how the world works. You go to work and act appropriately. You don't show up in flip flops with your crack pipe and a pizza stain on the front of your shirt to meet a corporate client. It's not bloody indoctrination!
 
anitram said:
Oh good grief..............................It's not bloody indoctrination!
Click to expand...

You are clearly a liberal bigot, otherwise you wouldn't be swearing at me in such a shrill fashion.
 
financeguy said:
An absolute fucking joke - but the inevitable result of the PC universe that some on here propagandise in favour of.

This is the result of the extreme left wing of the Democrat Party inveigling their ideology into public life.

Essentially, it's socialism by another name.
Click to expand...

What a fucking croc...

Yeah I somehow see those extreme lefties that talk about free love, trying to push for multiculturalism, want to tear down those types of walls pushing an agenda where you can't shake your brother's hand. Yeah it screams left. It doesn't reek of the sex fearing whiners that say kids move too fast on the right at all... This is the greatest form of abstinence.

:|
 
A similar rule was enforced at my old middle school a few years back, right at the time when I had a touchy-feely girlfriend. I can see making out in the halls and other seriously distracting things being a big deal, but high-fives? hugging? That's absurd.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


What a fucking croc...

Yeah I somehow see those extreme lefties that talk about free love, trying to push for multiculturalism, want to tear down those types of walls pushing an agenda where you can't shake your brother's hand. Yeah it screams left. It doesn't reek of the sex fearing whiners that say kids move too fast on the right at all...

:|
Click to expand...


The PC left has a lot in common with the theocratic right - both want to restrict freedoms, censor debate, and control society - the first by putting in place a series of no doubt well meaning social mores, sometimes enforced by their acolytes and paid enforcers in the media (witness the case of the unfortunate Mr Washington or even Mr Imus), the latter by means of prejudice against gays, atheists, pacifists, environmentalists (used by the right to label anyone that questions unfettered capitalism), etc.

The end aims are broadly similar - namely, to enforce their own narrow-minded ideology on the majority.

Both forms of extremism encourage, persuade and cajole the majority (i.e., for want of a better description, the middle classes) to believe that there is a 'correct', 'right', or, shall we say, an 'appropriate' way of thinking about any given issue, and accordingly opinions which fall outside this way of thinking are, automatically not given much credence.

What passes for the 'left' is no longer genuinely revolutionary, whereas what passes for the 'right' is not genuinely conservative, but largely reactionary, in the original sense of the word 'reactionary'.

In this paradigm, even the very word 'conservative' becomes a term of abuse amongst those elements that control certain elements of society, whilst conversely 'liberal' has also become a term of abuse used against those who disagree with theocracy and unfettered capitalism.

Also, both 'ideologies' if we can dignify them by such a name, ultimately tend towards the preservation of the mores of existing society which is essentially the rich getting richer and the working and middle classes staying poor and uninvolved (in the political sense), both are anti-freedom and stultifying, and coincencidentally or not both ultimately act in favour of the ruling interests, and as a result the ruling classes tend to preserve their power.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MrsSpringsteen
Gilead States Of America
Replies
16
Views
865
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
A
the little stranger chapter 2
Replies
0
Views
526
annj
A
A
The little stranger Chapter 6
Replies
0
Views
550
annj
A
A
The little Stranger chapter 11
Replies
0
Views
744
annj
A
A
The Little stranger chapter 16
Replies
0
Views
986
annj
A

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom