Posted on 03/13/2008 8:17:19 AM PDT by Nashvegas
NEW HAVEN, Connecticut (AP) -- School officials have decided to go light on an eighth-grader caught with contraband candy in New Haven, Connecticut. art.skittles.suspension.wfsb.jpg
Michael Sheridan originally was suspended and loss his class vice president post after buying a bag of candy.
Michael Sheridan, an eighth-grade honors student who was suspended for a day, barred from attending an honors dinner and stripped of his title as class vice president after he was caught with a bag of Skittles candy in school will get his student council post back, school officials said.
Superintendent Reginald Mayo said in a statement late Wednesday that he and principal Eleanor Turner met with student Michael's parents and that Turner decided to clear the boy's record and restore him to his student council post.
Michael was disciplined after he was caught buying a bag of Skittles from a classmate. The classmate's suspension also will be expunged, school officials said. Video Watch boy explain case »
The New Haven school system banned candy sales in 2003 as part of a districtwide school wellness policy, school spokeswoman Catherine Sullivan-DeCarlo said.
"I am sorry this has happened," Turner said in a statement. "My hope is that we can get back to the normal school routine, especially since we are in the middle of taking the Connecticut mastery test." advertisement
Turner said she should have reinforced in writing the verbal warnings against candy transactions.
Michael had said that he didn't realize his candy purchase was against the rules, but he did notice that the student selling the Skittles on February 26 was being secretive
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
I believe that parents have authority over their children. This rule allows parents to exercise that authority, without the state unecessarily interfering with liberty.
Children could bring snacks, they simply were not allowed to sell them to other children.
Maybe my child has diabetes, and I’m just starting to work on getting their diet in shape. Even grown adults have trouble controlling what they eat, so a 14-year-old may find it very difficult. I can control what they eat at home by not buying any candy. And if the school has a no-sales policy for candy, that allows me to send my child to school.
But if you allow other students to sell candy to my child, it removes my parental authority and control.
If the STATE was imposing their view of child-rearing on the parents (as they OFTEN do), that would be an “authoritarian statist” position. In this PARTICULAR instance, they are not. The child in question could bring his own skittles to school, and eat all he wanted. He simply could not purchase them from another child.
BTW, even if the school sold candy, parents might prefer they not allow students to sell food items to other students. Who knows what could have been done to that food item.
Now, in MY case, I don’t need the school to enforce too many rules. But my school doesn’t allow kids to have sex at school, and I am VERY happy they both HAVE the rule, and enforce it. I guess some people would complain THAT was an authoritarian statist position, but if you want to let kids have sex tell them to do it at your house.
I didn’t mean to imply I personally WANT such a rule. I was simply saying that having such a rule isn’t as authoritarian as it seems, and in fact does empower parents who DO have trouble with their children.
And since a majority of ADULTS in this country can’t control what they eat well enough, it’s not surprising schools have decided that teenagers can’t be trusted to make wise decisions in that regard.
We don’t have rules like this at our schools, and I wouldn’t ask for them. But I wouldn’t be upset if they HAD such a rule, so long as students were allowed to bring whatever they wanted from home.
Of course, our schools have the rules against bringing plastic knives to school. To which I say, one of these days they WILL be out in the real world where there are knives on every streetcorner, and we better have taught them how to use those knives in a responsible manner.
:-)
Some people always see the silver lining
The school stopped selling it, so he should have realized that meant it was now illegal to keep and bear.
And the principal should have made it clearer that nothing not specifically permitted was forbidden.
No, it was Skittles, and not say, a Snickers bar, or (GASP!) a Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup — then he would’ve probably been expelled and charged with possession of a deadly weapon on school grounds!
I’m glad these school officials realized that they were going WAY overboard in their punishment of this child (and the other).
What amazed me was in one of the updates where they retold the actual events as the “deal went down”. Seriously, you could’ve exchanged the Skittles for ANY illicit drug and it would’ve sounded like a script for an episode of COPS. What with the “pusher” throwing the candy (and presumably running), and the “buyer” shoving it in his pockets...
I can understand, and perhaps even support the rule understanding that candy sales being banned in the school might not be such a bad thing all things considered (I’m sure those Blow Pops we bought from fellow students my Sr. year in HS - budding capitalists that they were - and that we ate EVERY DAY for about a year didn’t HELP my genetically bad teeth).
However, when you read the actual rule, it does sound like it only applied to school sponsored candy sales (i.e. Fundraisers), and didn’t make clear that budding entrepenuers were affected as well. Granted, I don’t have access to the complete rule, but it does seem like what was out of whack in this case was the incredibly harsh punishment received - especially as something like this goes on a “permanent record” and COULD have affected his chances in getting into a good college.
I’m glad the administrators have realized the error of their ways. It’s a shame that it took this case to make them aware of how destructive their “zero-tolerance” plan in this case really was.
I am still worried about these kids though — like someone else pointed out they are creating an atmosphere of contempt for ANY type of authority, because they are getting so many mixed messages through school, and in society nowadays.
Perhaps though it’s a good thing. Nothing teaches someone better than personal experience. I’d hazard a guess that instead of these kids becoming “good little obedient citizens” that they will instead rebel against the overly draconian plans of the liberals instead — once they get away from the daily dose of indoctrination that is.
One can only hope that they don’t instead turn into total Anarchists not realizing that SOME rules (laws) really are a necessity within society.
Sorry for the long “rant”... I probably should’ve put this up on my blog instead! LOL Perhaps I will after a quick re-write...
Along with “wellness” be careful of someone who uses “empowers”
And let’s not even start on “disenfranchised”!!
Do you believe parents should not be empowered to raise their children in the way they deem best?
Or do you think that right belongs to the state?
Oh please, stop pretending that this is about parental authority, it is NOT.
It’s about bureaucratic MORONS who are throwing their little petty power around, because they can. Suspending a young person for selling candy. For God’s sake. suspending a retail process is one thing, but selling a single pack of candy?????
What’s WRONG with these idiots?? Oh wait, I know. Socials that must control every thought.
It’s way closer than you think.
See my tagline.
If you wander up the thread, you will see I agree with you.
I’m saying the rule is not absurd. The punishment was absurd.
If you are saying that as a parent I have no right to have the school enforce a policy of not allowing students to sell food items to my child, I disagree with you. I might not support such a rule myself, but it is a rational way to give parents control over the raising of their children.
As I said before, the child could bring all the skittles to school he wanted. He was just not allowed to BUY them from another student.
The kid said he didn’t know the rule. It didn’t sound like the kid was OBJECTING to the rule. The other kid seemed to know the rule, and seemed to have a business selling contraband. But since he was let off, maybe that was a misperception from the original article.
This reminds me of the South Park episode where Eric Cartman is sent to a fat camp and smuggles in candy to sell to the other kids. He makes lots of money, and angry parents come to shut down the camp because it obviously “isn’t working”.
Anyway, by High School kids should be able to start thinking for themselves, so I wouldn’t push this kind of rule at that grade level. But elementary and middle school, I think this is a GOOD policy, so long as the punishment is not overblown.
That would be Capitalism. That's EEEEEVIL!...
And the possibility of parole
If it weren't for men, the world would be filled with fat, happy, lesbians.
Not.
Never.
The State exists to make all the decisions, Citizen.
Top of the world, Ma!
Are you advocating that this policy be imposed on all of us?
If not, why not?
The kid and his mom were on Fox and Friends. After they were interviewed, a representative from Mars candy came on the set and gave the young man a case of Mars’ new “healthy” candy snack for teenagers (didn’t catch the product name), and a case of Skittles.
The C Musketeers? Carob Covered Cardboard...
Yes. I am advocating that you be allowed to choose for yourself what food you buy for you and your family.
And I am saying that when the state takes responsibility as your substitute caregiver, it is rational that they take action which maximizes the chance that your family wishes are upheld.
We’d all be screaming bloody murder if the school was giving out free condoms, or was allowing students to have sex in classrooms on free periods.
But you are getting upset that the school doesn’t allow a student to run a candy shop during school hours. Sorry, but SELLING CANDY is not a normal school student function.
The point about lack of control was to explain why I think it is OK for the parent to have authority over what the child has access to as far as food goes. Normally I would say that by middle school, you have to give kids a chance to mess up a bit, but given how hard it is to get even adults to lay off sweets, I think it is reasonable that the school HELP by not PROVIDING bad food.
I would strongly oppose a BAN on bringing your own snacks. But I see no reason to get upset that the school won’t SELL junk food, or allow other students to sell junk food. As I said, selling junk food isn’t a normal school student function.
Allowing students to bring their own snacks is a reasonable policy.
The funny thing is in another thread I’m arguing against a guy who says the government should make it criminal for a parent to not take steps to protect their child from other criminals doing them harm.
Seriously, I am anti-government-involvement. But I expect the government to do what it can to maximize my parental authority over my children, while they are still my responsibility.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.