This post's fractal is called Ring of Fire. I picked it because of the "ring" shape (similar to a "zero") and the fire represents intensity. Ah well, on with today's post!
-
Some things in the news this week have gotten my panties in a bunch--yet again. They all have to do with “zero tolerance” and the “appearance of impropriety“--two concepts that look great on paper but doesn’t work so well in the “real” world. Read on and tell me what you think . . .
-
Friday March 16 a couple of girls were sent home from an Orange County Elementary School for coming to school with green hair (dyed temporarily in honor of St. Patrick’s Day). Colored hair is, according to school administrators, a “distraction” to the other students.
-
Frankly, I just don’t get that: I’ve never felt the need to dye my hair but whenever I see someone with “unique” hair (or other features) I don’t give them more than a passing glance. Maybe things have changed since I was in school back in the Age of the Dinosaurs but I’m pretty sure that not a lot gets done on holidays. But, then again, I’m pretty sure St. Patrick’s Day isn’t even mentioned in public school these days. After all, we can’t have a hint of religious prejudice, can we?
-
Zero Tolerance is usually a good thing but, like everything else, it can easily go too far--like it did in this case. It can often go too far. Good kids get caught and punished because the school administrators have no choice but to enforce the policy in order to avoid the “appearance of impropriety.” Doesn’t matter how minor the infraction, Administrators have no choice but the enforce pre-determined punishments.
-
And that brings us to the next part of the story.
-
Two teachers were recently fired from a Catholic High School here in Orange County. “Inappropriate Conduct” was cited (although the Diocese says their conduct “did not involve students.” The investigation and subsequent decisions were carried out behind closed doors: the Diocese cited “privacy rights” (for both them and the people involved) as their reason for doing this.
-
Here’s what little we do know. Both teachers were single, middle-aged men (and this same High School has had previous sex scandals involving single, middle-aged men). One teacher was asked by parents to allow their son to accompany him on a trip to Egypt and the two spent the night together in a hotel room. (The boy, age 17 at the time) insists nothing happened and he didn’t feel the slightest bit uncomfortable during the trip. The other teacher had a “streaking incident” on a camping trip (which was a prank engineered by the students and he had no part in). He also took several students to a Turkish Bath as a cultural experience while on a tour of Europe, Turkey to be specific. Clothing is optional in the Turkish Baths but everyone who went (from the school at least) covered their naughty bits. It should also be noted that the parents of the students involved in this knew what was going to happen in advance and gave their consent for their sons to participate.
-
The “bottom line” is simply this: the Diocese of Orange County can fire any teacher for almost any reason. And, to be completely fair, something truly inappropriate that we don’t know about that the Diocese does could have happened. Personally, I think the firings have a lot more to do with said teachers being gay or having some “anti-Catholic values rather than anything “wrong” they may have done but that is merely speculation on my part: I have no solid evidence.
-
Neither of the teachers involved as chosen to speak out (which may or may not be important) but the school has lost two popular and dedicated teachers and parents and students are left without any answers. Maybe the men are afraid that speaking out may make it harder for them to be hired by other institution in the future or maybe they simply choose to put the whole incident behind them. In any case, I’m sure nothing illegal happened or the Diocese would be pursuing criminal charges.
-
School officials are completely within their rights to fire these men (and if there’s something going on then these men really do need to go: still, I think this whole incident places the school district (and in my opinion the whole Catholic Church) in a bad light. Furthermore it sends the teachers at this (and other) Catholic schools a message I’m sure the church hadn’t intended--don’t get involved and don’t help out your students. Doing so will just get you in trouble--and that is truly sad. Teachers like this are a rare gift and should be encouraged but after this incident it will be less likely that a teacher will do anything other than provide classroom instruction.
-
Avoiding the “appearance of impropriety” has also taken on national importance thanks to what’s going on in Washington DC right now: unless you’ve had your head buried in the sand the past few months you have no doubt heard about the firings of several Federal Prosecutors, the subsequent cover-up and the troubles that have since befallen the Bush Administration.
-
Like any private enterprise, the Bush administration can pretty much fire anyone they want--but in this case doesn’t center around the firings themselves but the subsequent lies and cover up that followed. Not a good thing--if indeed it happened as many Democrats (and even a few Republicans) insist. And the more information that comes out the worse it looks for Bush‘s people. Then just when you think it can’t get any worse President opens his mouth and sticks his foot in it.
-
Congress, in a rare bi-partisan effort, has decided to fully investigating the situation, The Judiciary Committee has requested testimony from senior White House Senior Staffers (like Karl Rove and Harriet Myers). President Bush, however, stated yesterday (March 20) that he will not “allow” these people to be subpoenaed. (He feels that the fact that he allows them to talk to the committee behind closed doors is more than enough.)
-
Maybe it’s just me but I always thought that all Americans were supposed to be equal under the law. The idea that our President can prevent someone from testifying (by invoking “Presidential Privilege, whatever that is) really disturbs me. President Bush cites “party politics” as his reason for doing this but it seems to me that if his Administration has nothing to hide he shouldn’t have a problem with his people testifying in public and under oath. I think he’d want to cooperate fully--if only to avoid the “appearance of impropriety.”
-
Friday March 16 a couple of girls were sent home from an Orange County Elementary School for coming to school with green hair (dyed temporarily in honor of St. Patrick’s Day). Colored hair is, according to school administrators, a “distraction” to the other students.
-
Frankly, I just don’t get that: I’ve never felt the need to dye my hair but whenever I see someone with “unique” hair (or other features) I don’t give them more than a passing glance. Maybe things have changed since I was in school back in the Age of the Dinosaurs but I’m pretty sure that not a lot gets done on holidays. But, then again, I’m pretty sure St. Patrick’s Day isn’t even mentioned in public school these days. After all, we can’t have a hint of religious prejudice, can we?
-
Zero Tolerance is usually a good thing but, like everything else, it can easily go too far--like it did in this case. It can often go too far. Good kids get caught and punished because the school administrators have no choice but to enforce the policy in order to avoid the “appearance of impropriety.” Doesn’t matter how minor the infraction, Administrators have no choice but the enforce pre-determined punishments.
-
And that brings us to the next part of the story.
-
Two teachers were recently fired from a Catholic High School here in Orange County. “Inappropriate Conduct” was cited (although the Diocese says their conduct “did not involve students.” The investigation and subsequent decisions were carried out behind closed doors: the Diocese cited “privacy rights” (for both them and the people involved) as their reason for doing this.
-
Here’s what little we do know. Both teachers were single, middle-aged men (and this same High School has had previous sex scandals involving single, middle-aged men). One teacher was asked by parents to allow their son to accompany him on a trip to Egypt and the two spent the night together in a hotel room. (The boy, age 17 at the time) insists nothing happened and he didn’t feel the slightest bit uncomfortable during the trip. The other teacher had a “streaking incident” on a camping trip (which was a prank engineered by the students and he had no part in). He also took several students to a Turkish Bath as a cultural experience while on a tour of Europe, Turkey to be specific. Clothing is optional in the Turkish Baths but everyone who went (from the school at least) covered their naughty bits. It should also be noted that the parents of the students involved in this knew what was going to happen in advance and gave their consent for their sons to participate.
-
The “bottom line” is simply this: the Diocese of Orange County can fire any teacher for almost any reason. And, to be completely fair, something truly inappropriate that we don’t know about that the Diocese does could have happened. Personally, I think the firings have a lot more to do with said teachers being gay or having some “anti-Catholic values rather than anything “wrong” they may have done but that is merely speculation on my part: I have no solid evidence.
-
Neither of the teachers involved as chosen to speak out (which may or may not be important) but the school has lost two popular and dedicated teachers and parents and students are left without any answers. Maybe the men are afraid that speaking out may make it harder for them to be hired by other institution in the future or maybe they simply choose to put the whole incident behind them. In any case, I’m sure nothing illegal happened or the Diocese would be pursuing criminal charges.
-
School officials are completely within their rights to fire these men (and if there’s something going on then these men really do need to go: still, I think this whole incident places the school district (and in my opinion the whole Catholic Church) in a bad light. Furthermore it sends the teachers at this (and other) Catholic schools a message I’m sure the church hadn’t intended--don’t get involved and don’t help out your students. Doing so will just get you in trouble--and that is truly sad. Teachers like this are a rare gift and should be encouraged but after this incident it will be less likely that a teacher will do anything other than provide classroom instruction.
-
Avoiding the “appearance of impropriety” has also taken on national importance thanks to what’s going on in Washington DC right now: unless you’ve had your head buried in the sand the past few months you have no doubt heard about the firings of several Federal Prosecutors, the subsequent cover-up and the troubles that have since befallen the Bush Administration.
-
Like any private enterprise, the Bush administration can pretty much fire anyone they want--but in this case doesn’t center around the firings themselves but the subsequent lies and cover up that followed. Not a good thing--if indeed it happened as many Democrats (and even a few Republicans) insist. And the more information that comes out the worse it looks for Bush‘s people. Then just when you think it can’t get any worse President opens his mouth and sticks his foot in it.
-
Congress, in a rare bi-partisan effort, has decided to fully investigating the situation, The Judiciary Committee has requested testimony from senior White House Senior Staffers (like Karl Rove and Harriet Myers). President Bush, however, stated yesterday (March 20) that he will not “allow” these people to be subpoenaed. (He feels that the fact that he allows them to talk to the committee behind closed doors is more than enough.)
-
Maybe it’s just me but I always thought that all Americans were supposed to be equal under the law. The idea that our President can prevent someone from testifying (by invoking “Presidential Privilege, whatever that is) really disturbs me. President Bush cites “party politics” as his reason for doing this but it seems to me that if his Administration has nothing to hide he shouldn’t have a problem with his people testifying in public and under oath. I think he’d want to cooperate fully--if only to avoid the “appearance of impropriety.”
No comments:
Post a Comment