4 ms·

That is not how zero-tolerance policies are enforced in any school district.

by tedks 11y ago

dragonwriter 11y ago
> That is not how zero-tolerance policies are enforced in any school district. Zero-tolerance policies are their own can of worms, but neither such policies nor any possible explanation of their enforcement explains the characterizations made after the fact by both school and law enforcement officials regarding the supposed "hoax bomb".
- tedks 11y ago
  http://www.irvingisd.net/cms/lib010/TX01917973/Centricity/Domain/1454/Irving%20ISD%20Student%20Code%20of%20Conduct%202015-2106%20English.pdf http://www.irvingisd.net/cms/lib010/TX01917973/Centricity/Do... http://pol.tasb.org/Policy/Download/367?filename=FOD(LEGAL).pdf http://pol.tasb.org/Policy/Download/367?filename=FOD(LEGAL).... These are the relevant documents. They are short enough to read them in less than 5 minutes. Can you tell me what the legally-mandated punishment is for bringing a non-weapon that resembles a weapon onto school grounds is? It's easy to bikeshed about "characterizations", but there are legally no other ways the school district could have reacted on the day they were making decisions.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > Can you tell me what the legally-mandated punishment is for bringing a non-weapon that resembles a weapon onto school grounds is? Can you explain the relevance since -- except in the sense that every digital clock in existence resembles a fictional weapon through the Hollywood tendency to depict bombs as digital clock displays -- the actual device in question does not in any meaningful sense resemble a weapon.
    - tedks 11y ago
      Do you think that matters at all? Literally everyone involved in this chain of decisions, from the teacher to the school principal to the superindendent, are only interested in covering their own ass. They don't need to think that the device in question resembles a weapon, they just need to think that ANYONE will at ANY TIME think that it does and penalize them for not acting as the law mandates. Further, you answer your own question. Remember that chicken fingers qualify as weapons under these policies.

That is not how zero-tolerance policies are enforced in any school district.

by tedks 11y ago

That is not how zero-tolerance policies are enforced in any school district.

> That is not how zero-tolerance policies are enforced in any school district. Zero-tolerance policies are their own can of worms, but neither such policies nor any possible explanation of their enforcement explains the characterizations made after the fact by both school and law enforcement officials regarding the supposed "hoax bomb".

tedks 11y ago
http://www.irvingisd.net/cms/lib010/TX01917973/Centricity/Domain/1454/Irving%20ISD%20Student%20Code%20of%20Conduct%202015-2106%20English.pdf http://www.irvingisd.net/cms/lib010/TX01917973/Centricity/Do... http://pol.tasb.org/Policy/Download/367?filename=FOD(LEGAL).pdf http://pol.tasb.org/Policy/Download/367?filename=FOD(LEGAL).... These are the relevant documents. They are short enough to read them in less than 5 minutes. Can you tell me what the legally-mandated punishment is for bringing a non-weapon that resembles a weapon onto school grounds is? It's easy to bikeshed about "characterizations", but there are legally no other ways the school district could have reacted on the day they were making decisions.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Can you tell me what the legally-mandated punishment is for bringing a non-weapon that resembles a weapon onto school grounds is? Can you explain the relevance since -- except in the sense that every digital clock in existence resembles a fictional weapon through the Hollywood tendency to depict bombs as digital clock displays -- the actual device in question does not in any meaningful sense resemble a weapon.
  - tedks 11y ago
    Do you think that matters at all? Literally everyone involved in this chain of decisions, from the teacher to the school principal to the superindendent, are only interested in covering their own ass. They don't need to think that the device in question resembles a weapon, they just need to think that ANYONE will at ANY TIME think that it does and penalize them for not acting as the law mandates. Further, you answer your own question. Remember that chicken fingers qualify as weapons under these policies.