The stupidity of the decision is not being debated. I never claimed the suspension was justice.
SerpentDove (SD) first claim was that this particular case involved a 1st grader. It didn't. It was a sixth grader. If you do not know the difference in discipline problems between 1st and 6th graders consider yourself blessed. 6th graders are a world more difficult to control which, by itself changes the dynamics of the story. No longer is the victim an innocent 6 or 7 year old, but rather a bit more unruly 11 to 12 year old.
SD second claim was that the chain was a tiny (her word) chain on the end of a TweetyBird keychain. It was not. It was a 10 inch chain that had keys attached to it. Is this a potential weapon? It could be and I could see why a school would prohibit such items. But, again, the facts are not what SD claimed they were.
But rather than admit her errors, she accepted a conditional apology of which the conditions were never met. She provided inaccurate information. I called her on it and now her feelings are hurt and you are jumping to her defense.
Tell me, was SD description accurate?
Was the child a first grader?
Was the child suspended for bring a tiny TweetyBird keychain to school?
Or am I correct?
Was there more to this story or some information missing?
I am not suggesting that this suspension was warranted or correct, just acknowledging that SD did not provide accurate details.
I think you are dead wrong on this one, with all due respect. It is an absurd decision, period. You can try to have your pissing match with Serp all day, but he/she explained very well what he/she wrote.
You are smearing SD unjustly as a liar or a prevaricator of truth. Not true. Not on this thread at least. For that, you should apologize.
IMHO