Last week,
in her column “The Answer Sheet,” Valerie Straus listed “eight weird things schools banned
this year.” Some of
the bans were absurd overreactions to freak accidents that were unlikely to ever
occur again and that could be averted much more simply through greater caution
by students and teachers. For example, frilly socks were banned at Kingshold
Primary School in Gloucester, England, after a child tripped over her dangles
and fell, according to the
Independent. In
another bizarre example, Castle View School in Essex, England, prohibited
triangular flapjacks (in England, flapjacks are hard cookies, not pancakes) after
one was tossed and hit a student in the eye, the independent reported. To “solve” this dangerous
problem, school officials are now requiring that flapjacks be square—apparently
these officials had cut geometry class the day they
talked about how squares have more sharp corners than triangles.
Other bans
stemmed from the hysteria over bullying, (here and here), and are equally misguided. The Eagle-Tribune wrote that the Wyndham School
District in New Hampshire, for example, has banned dodge ball and other “human
target” games as a way to reduce bullying. Yet bullying (as well as run of the
mill teasing, harassing and meanness) can occur in virtually any game or sport.
A child can choose to slide tackle in soccer out of poor sportsmanship,
vindictiveness or outright hatred of the victim. A batter or runner can be hit
by the ball in baseball, kickball or softball for similar reasons. A person
jumping rope can be deliberately tripped by the rope turners. A person playing
hopscotch can be tripped by pebbles or a banana peel tossed onto the playing field.
Where does it end?
However,
another way of parsing this perplexing ban is that dodge ball does not just
provide an opportunity for a few bullies to gang up on one kid. It also
provides an opportunity for a kid with any grievance whatsoever, including
having been victimized by bullies, to target his tormentor in return. However,
it seems like Wyndham School District is assuming that the victims of bullying
truly are the feeble weaklings their tormentors say they are and, therefore,
lack the capability of fighting back on the playing field (or the common sense
to opt out of contact sports in which their tormentors are playing).
The other great
hysteria around children—molestation (see here, and here)—has led to the banning of adult
hugging in St. Mary’s County Public Schools, in Maryland, according to Southern Maryland News. According to the ban, adults may
hug any child they wish, as long as it’s their own, but better keep their
slimy, pervy hands off of everyone else’s children. While this might seem a
prudent rule for teachers of middle and high school students to avoid any
perception of prurient interest in the students, the situation is significantly
different for elementary school teachers, whose students have much greater need
for regular physical reassurances that they are loved and cared for.
Personally, I do not want my son in a kindergarten class with an icy robot
teacher who tells him to put on his own bandage, wipe his own tears and just go
grab a hug from his friend whenever he’s feeling insecure or sad.
Speaking of
prurient interest, thank God Kenilworth Junior High school, in Petaluma,
California, has had the hindsight to ban girls’ leggings (stretch pants) which,
when they bend over and the fabric stretches, provide more hindsight for their
classmates than the fashion police feel is tolerable. ABC News suggested it was causing “distractions”
in the classroom (i.e., boys, and no doubt some girls, too, were more
interested in their classmates’ butts than their history lessons). This reminds
me of my own school days, when only the most popular brands of tight-fitting
pants and shorts were banned for similar reasons. Of course this begs the
question: if teenagers are more interested in each other’s butts than the
curriculum, shouldn’t something be done to make the curriculum more exciting
and meaningful to them? It also highlights a fact that most adults and educators
are constantly trying to suppress or deny: Teenagers are sexual beings. They
have lusts, like adults. Banning one particular style of clothing will not
change this. They will still be titillated by their peers’ looks and think
about how cute so and so is, even after banning every other provocative and
popular article of clothing for our students own protection.
Every
generation comes up with its own popular genre of music and older generations
routinely poo poo it as trash. . . When I
was young. . . that was real music back then! Lawrence Welk and Frank Sinatra
kick ass on Elvis and Frankie. But wait, what about the 60s? Music then was
revolutionary. It was political. It was part of the anti-war movement, and
today’s music is just a bunch of misogynistic, homophobic, violence-glorifying
dreck. And why should our schools promote such anti-social messages? Thus, Arcadia
High School in Southern California has banned Lady Gaga’s “Starstruck,” as well
as 19 other songs at prom, because they are degrading to women.
While there
is certainly some logic and perhaps even ethical basis for avoiding overtly
misogynistic music, it is, in reality, completely arbitrary and pointless. The
overwhelming majority of popular music throughout history has been mindless
dreck if you really pay attention to the lyrics, including during the
“revolutionary” 60s, when the majority of songs were insipid odes to puppy love
and rants about being jilted. And the 60s, as well as the 50s and most other generations
have had a subset of music with antisocial, misogynistic, racist, homophobic
and otherwise offensive lyrics (though sometimes the offensive lyrics are meant
to be satirical). Banning 19 songs leaves the thousands of others that still
violate whatever arbitrary moral guidelines the thought police have set.
St. Mary’s
County Public schools has also banned birthday invitations so as to not make
the uninvited kids feel bad. This reminds me of an administrator who said that
kids’ names shouldn’t be written on the board to remind them they have
detentions and that you should never tell a student he is failing because such
forms of communication could humiliate students. It also reminds me about some
anarchists in the 1990s who tried to create an End to Unhappiness Festival and
movement.
Sorry folks,
but unhappiness, embarrassment, feeling left out, and bad news are all
unavoidable conditions of life. People die. Conflicts occur. Relationships end.
Reformers make life harder for regular people. . . “Daddy, where is Mommy?” . . . “Er, well
son, she’s certainly not dead. You don’t have to worry about that. Absolutely
not dead. Not in the slightest. . . Hey,
let’s make some birthday invitations.”
Obviously,
as educators we have a responsibility to address academic and disciplinary
matters with tact and appropriateness, including not deliberately humiliating a
student. However, getting caught being naughty and earning an F are inherently
embarrassing situations and, even if a teacher is tactful and appropriate in
her response, a student may still end up feeling embarrassed. Likewise, does
the school really believe that the uninvited kids aren’t going to find out
about the party anyway and still feel bad?
All of these
bans have far more to do with social control, prejudice and paranoia about
lawsuits than protecting children. This is perhaps best illustrated by Strauss’
last example, where two students’ pictures were removed from the yearbook at
White Cloud High School in Michigan because their “baby bumps” (i.e., pregnant
bellies) “sent a bad message to other students. However, according to New York Magazine, Superintendent Barry Seabrook
felt that the girls’ photos would be an advertisement that their abstinence-based
sex education program was a failure. So much for “evidence-based” education
reform.
