6 year old accused of sexual harassment

[Slash-LN]

If you've read the news today you have probably seen this story but I thought we could discuss it.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/10/first-grade-kiss-suspension/3963813/

Basically a six year old boy kissed a girl on the hand and their classmates told the teacher.

The boy was suspended for a few days and in his school records it was stamped "Sexual harassment".

The boy had been suspended once before for kissing the same girl on the cheek and once for roughhousing which the school said they took into consideration before making this decision.

According to the boy's mom the boy and the girl call each other boyfriend and girlfriend and the girl didn't complain about it.

She want the sexual harassment part taken off his record.

So do you think the school is overreacting?

Please share any thoughts or opinions you may have on this matter.

As far as my own opinion I feel like this is normal child behavior and is innocent. I don't agree with the school in this case.

 

[klunderbunker]

.....he's SIX.

This is yet another case where the rule is enforced with absolutely zero thought behind it at all. I'm going to go very old school here and go with a verse from the Bible (paraphrased):

You give an infant milk instead of meat because a child isn't ready for meat yet.

The idea is simple: you treat a child differently because it's incapable of understanding some things. This would be one of those cases. You don't tell a six year old he's sexually harassing someone. You tell him that he isn't supposed to touch someone else and give him a time out or take away a privilege like recess. To put this on a kid's record when he's not allowed to cross the street without someone holding his hand is WAY too harsh of a punishment.

Also, do we have any evidence that the girl objected? The rule says unwanted touching, but according to the mom, the kids think of themselves as boyfriend and girlfriend. Yeah that's a very different meaning at this age, but assuming it's true, the girl seems like she cares for him and didn't object. Isn't that missing the point of a rule in the first place?

WAY too strict here and simply taking the boy aside and saying you're not supposed to do that would be much better.

 

[Mustang Sally]

There's a big difference in how minors are treated because there's a big difference in how they are regarded, with the interpreter choosing the definition that best makes his case. A 20-year-old trying to buy alcohol and the 6-year-old who kisses his female classmate are both seen as minors, under the law.

Obviously, there's a huge difference and there will have to be further definition of what a minor is, and under what divisions they will be handled legally. The 20-year-old "minor" is actually an adult and should have to adhere to all rules and regulations required of the rest of us. The 6-year-old can't be held accountable for much, even if he kills someone......especially with society pleased to blame his parents for anything the kid might do, so anyone anxious to become a parent had better understand how awesome a responsibility they take on when making a child.

Naturally, there's not much they can do about a situation like the one described in this topic......until it happens. It's kinda doubtful they'll send their 6-year-old to school in the morning with the warning that he not sexually harass any of the girls in the class......and even if they did, a kid will probably find something else to do that's wrong in the eyes of society ......with the system pleased as punch to condemn the adult for not raising their child "correctly" if he does something wrong that they hadn't considered.

The adults are damned-if-they-do and damned-if-they-don't....as far as guessing how to prepare their children to get along in this wacky world. But there have to be a set of standards laid out as to how to correct a child's behavior.....and having "sexual harassment" on a 6-year-old's permanent record sure as hell ain't it.

 

[Reflection]

Of course they are overreacting. Mentality like that takes the country backward. They should be deported to my country. Jacka**es like them would fit right in.

 

[lil steroid meat]

If the girl did not object and they obviously care for each other why is this an issue?

You could make the argument that it's not appropriate for school but to put "sexual harassment" on little man's record?

 

[Slyfox696]

According to the boy's mom the boy and the girl call each other boyfriend and girlfriend and the girl didn't complain about it.

According to the girl's mom, the girl has complained about it.

.....he's SIX.

So is the girl who is being harassed.

This is yet another case where the rule is enforced with absolutely zero thought behind it at all.

Really? What else would you call it when a male pursues a female against her will and continually lays lips on her?

The idea is simple: you treat a child differently because it's incapable of understanding some things. This would be one of those cases.

Maybe, maybe not. This type of behavior (as well as supposed past instances) suggests this student is far more aware of what he's doing than most 1st graders would be. It also suggests possible sexual abuse by someone he knows.

You don't tell a six year old he's sexually harassing someone. You tell him that he isn't supposed to touch someone else and give him a time out or take away a privilege like recess.

They did that, repeatedly.

Also, do we have any evidence that the girl objected?

Her mother says she does. That's good enough for me.

The rule says unwanted touching, but according to the mom, the kids think of themselves as boyfriend and girlfriend.

According to the mother who ran to the media to expose her own child's name and past history of problems of making unwanted advances and other discipline issues. Perhaps we ought not to take her word as gospel. Instead, let's focus on the mother of the girl who says the school did the right thing in trying to protect her daughter from the unwanted advances.

WAY too strict here and simply taking the boy aside and saying you're not supposed to do that would be much better.

They did that, repeatedly.

Of course they are overreacting. Mentality like that takes the country backward. They should be deported to my country. Jacka**es like them would fit right in.

So despite the mother of the daughter coming out and saying the advances are unwanted, and despite the fact the boy has a history of doing this and despite the fact previous attempts at discipline has failed, the school overreacted?

If the girl did not object and they obviously care for each other why is this an issue?

But she did object. And it has happened repeatedly.

 

[klunderbunker]

According to the girl's mom, the girl has complained about it.
So is the girl who is being harassed.

That changes a few things then.

Really? What else would you call it when a male pursues a female against her will and continually lays lips on her?

When they're six years old, not sexual harassment. While not being a psychologist, I don't think six year olds comprehend the idea of sex yet.

Maybe, maybe not. This type of behavior (as well as supposed past instances) suggests this student is far more aware of what he's doing than most 1st graders would be. It also suggests possible sexual abuse by someone he knows.

Perhaps, or perhaps he's been told you give kisses to people you like/care about. I'd think it warrants a closer look though.

They did that, repeatedly.

That's fine, though I still have an issue with someone six years old having that on a record. Harassment perhaps, but I have an issue with it being sexual.

 

[Slyfox696]

When they're six years old, not sexual harassment. While not being a psychologist, I don't think six year olds comprehend the idea of sex yet.

They do if they've been exposed to it.

Perhaps, or perhaps he's been told you give kisses to people you like/care about. I'd think it warrants a closer look though.

This story seems like there's more to it than the innocence of a child. If this was just an innocent thing, it would then stand to reason this would happen more often, even regularly.

That's fine, though I still have an issue with someone six years old having that on a record. Harassment perhaps, but I have an issue with it being sexual.

Whether you have a problem with it or not doesn't change the fact it is.

 

[klunderbunker]

They do if they've been exposed to it.

That's true, though I don't think that's what's going on here. It's possible of course, but it could be something as simple as he sees his parents kissing, asked what they're doing, and was told it's what you do to someone you care about.

This story seems like there's more to it than the innocence of a child. If this was just an innocent thing, it would then stand to reason this would happen more often, even regularly.

Hopefully not, though it's worth looking into. The thing I took from the article is that it was on her hand. I'm not sure if it was ever on her face and/or mouth, but kissing someone's hand sounds more innocent than it's being made out to be.

That being said, if he's told to stop then he needs to stop and if he doesn't then he should be punished, but I still see this as too extreme.

 

[NegativeFeedback]

This type of behavior (as well as supposed past instances) suggests this student is far more aware of what he's doing than most 1st graders would be. It also suggests possible sexual abuse by someone he knows.

The fuck? You're nuts, man. When I was 5, I'd run after this girl who was my "girlfriend" and was always stealing kisses from her on the lips. I wasn't "abused" and I didn't even know what sex was, I was just playing around. Kids do it, it's not a big deal.

Plus, this kid only kissed her on the hand. I consider that pretty freaking classy for a 6 year old.

 

[LSN80]

They do if they've been exposed to it.

What children have been exposed to and what they comprehend are two different things.

From the mother of the boy in the article:

"This is taking it to an extreme that doesn't need to be met with a six year old. Now my son is asking questions. What is sex mommy? That should not ever be said, sex. Not in a sentence with a six year old."

See what I mean?

This story seems like there's more to it than the innocence of a child. If this was just an innocent thing, it would then stand to reason this would happen more often, even regularly.

I agree, completely, especially since this isn't the first time it's happened with this boy.

However, there's a small problem here. For someone to actually be legally culpable in something, which is what a school record would reflect, it stands to reason that they need to have an understanding of what they're doing.

All studies of behavioral psychology show that a child who is six doesn't have an understanding of sexuality, outside of fascination with their own private parts. The environment they've been exposed to may cause them to mimic behavior they've seen, but the idea of this being portrayed as sexual harrassment is ludicrous.

Whether you have a problem with it or not doesn't change the fact it is.

Legally? Sure. But in terms of being sexual harrassment in the psychological sense? Nope. While the only thing that may distinguish it, to the naked eye, may be age 6, the second variable is the sexual component, which a six year old is simply unable, maturity wise, to grasp.

KB's right. There's no way in heck this should ever find it's way onto the boy's record, although his parents, the school, and hopefullly a damn good psychologist get heavily involved here.

Because actions such as these, unwanted adavances at such a young age, are early signs of a sociopath-in-waiting. I know that sounds ominous and over-the-top for what seemingly is tepid behavior, but if it persisted after multiple objections, it's a warning sign.

To be clear, Im not saying the kid is a sociopath.

When I was 5, I'd run after this girl who was my "girlfriend" and was always stealing kisses from her on the lips. I wasn't "abused" and I didn't even know what sex was, I was just playing around. Kids do it, it's not a big deal.

Plus, this kid only kissed her on the hand. I consider that pretty freaking classy for a 6 year old.

While all of this may be true, what you're describing isn't what happened here. So at least understand the context of the subject before you comment.

 

[NegativeFeedback]

While all of this may be true, what you're describing isn't what happened here. So at least understand the context of the subject before you comment.

What is your point? What I described was far "worse" than what this kid did. I would kiss a 5-year-old on the lips. He kissed a girl twice in the hand. Was I a 5-year-old sexual deviant? Come on.

 

[LSN80]

What is your point? What I described was far "worse" than what this kid did. I would kiss a 5-year-old on the lips. He kissed a girl twice in the hand. Was I a 5-year-old sexual deviant? Come on.

What this shows is a pervasive pattern of behavior. It's not the behavior itself that is troublesome, though it's something to keep an eye on. The real problem is that the young girl expressed displeasure at the behavior, and the boy persisted despite.

I'll simplify it for you: If a 6 year old punched someone in the arm once, was asked not to, and did so again, it would be inappropriate behavior. What's important to understand is that it's not the behavior itself(thought it matters, but for argument sake, we'll ignore it), but that it persisted after being asked to stop. That is the problem, which I made clear in my response to Sly.

Was I a 5-year-old sexual deviant? Come on.

No. Your reading comprehension is that of a 5 year old. Here's what I wrote.

All studies of behavioral psychology show that a child who is six doesn't have an understanding of sexuality, outside of fascination with their own private parts. The environment they've been exposed to may cause them to mimic behavior they've seen, but the idea of this being portrayed as sexual harrassment is ludicrous.

I eagerly await your intelligent rebuttal. That is, if you understood what I wrote.

 

[Eyebrows]

The kid's behaviour is wrong if he's been told not to do it. Labelling it as sexual harassment is ridiculous though. If a child hits another child then you tell him in no uncertain terms that the action is wrong and punish him, but you don't record is as assault and battery.

I'm surprised they haven't gone the whole nine yards and sent him on one of those sexual harrassment in the workplace seminars.

 

[NegativeFeedback]

What this shows is a pervasive pattern of behavior. It's not the behavior itself that is troublesome, though it's something to keep an eye on. The real problem is that the young girl expressed displeasure at the behavior, and the boy persisted despite.

I'll simplify it for you: If a 6 year old punched someone in the arm once, was asked not to, and did so again, it would be inappropriate behavior. What's important to understand is that it's not the behavior itself(thought it matters, but for argument sake, we'll ignore it), but that it persisted after being asked to stop. That is the problem, which I made clear in my response to Sly.


No. Your reading comprehension is that of a 5 year old. Here's what I wrote.


I eagerly await your intelligent rebuttal. That is, if you understood what I wrote.

Your whole point is beyond ridiculous. Who cares if the girl didn't want the kiss on the hand? Kids don't understand what consent really means. I would grab women's boobs when I was little cuz I knew I could get away with it being a kid.
I also remember once chasing a girl down the hallway so I can kiss her. Who gives a shit? I was a kid. I've seen plenty of other kids act the same way. You act as if a 5-6 year-old acting that way means he's hiding a serial rapist within his psyche.

You ended your post on a very intelligent note saying that calling this sexual harassment is ludicrous, but you prefaced it with a paragraph about how it's horribly concerning that a kid didn't STOP when told to stop. Holy shit, he's a kid. How many kids don't STOP when they're told?? It is completely normal behavior and there is nothing "concerning" about it. The situation requires the same type of discipline that every other disobedient kid in the world gets (and by every disobedient kid, I mean EVERY KID).

 

[LSN80]

Your whole point is beyond ridiculous. Who cares if the girl didn't want the kiss on the hand? Kids don't understand what consent really means. I would grab women's boobs when I was little cuz I knew I could get away with it being a kid.

My point is rediculous in saying that it's a concern if a child violates another's personal boundaries over and again when told not to? Kids don't understand consent? Consent is simple: Yes or No.

If you're trying to sell some weak logic that kids at age 6 don't understand "Yes" or "No", you're not very intelligent. And the fact that you knew you could get away with it shows you knew what consent was.

You just knew you could get away with it, says you. Again, you knew. Knowing shows an understanding of consent.

I also remember once chasing a girl down the hallway so I can kiss her. Who gives a shit? I was a kid. I've seen plenty of other kids act the same way. You act as if a 5-6 year-old acting that way means he's hiding a serial rapist within his psyche.

I actually said the opposite. I said the act doesn't matter, it's the repetitive pattern of behavior. It's not behavior where you lock the kid up, but if it persists over and again, it's time to call in a good psychologist.

Remember the example I gave you, just one post earlier? Apparently you missed the entire point I was making, so I'm going to re-post it once again, with the minute hope that it sinks in.

If a 6 year old punched someone in the arm once, was asked not to, and did so again, it would be a pattern of inappropriate behavior. What's important to understand is that it's not the behavior itself(thought it matters, but for argument sake, we'll ignore it), but that it persisted after being asked to stop.

I would grab women's boobs when I was little cuz I knew I could get away with it being a kid.

Something to be proud of at any age, for sure.

You ended your post on a very intelligent note.saying that calling this sexual harassment is ludicrous, but you prefaced it with a paragraph about how it's horribly concerning that a kid didn't STOP when told to stop. Holy shit, he's a kid. How many kids don't STOP when they're told??

Normal behavior? Not the word I'd use, but I won't split hairs. And it's not that he didn't stop, it's that he repeated the behavior. It happens all the time, but your argument is the laisze faire type of "It happens all the time, so it's no big deal."

Let me clue you in on something. Kids at the age of 5-6 are the most selfish, self-absorbed people on the planet. So when behavior like this pops up, no matter how innocent it may seem, you nip it in the bud. It's that simple.

The behavior isn't sexual harrassment. Kids that age DO have an understanding of consent, which is shown best in the example you provided. It is harrassment if it happens, technically, 3 times, and that seems to be the case here. But it's not sexual harrassment, because most kids that age simply don't have the comprehension of sexuality.

 

[Slyfox696]

The fuck? You're nuts, man. When I was 5, I'd run after this girl who was my "girlfriend" and was always stealing kisses from her on the lips. I wasn't "abused" and I didn't even know what sex was, I was just playing around. Kids do it, it's not a big deal.

Plus, this kid only kissed her on the hand. I consider that pretty freaking classy for a 6 year old.

Did you continue to do it repeatedly after you were told to stop multiple times and disciplined multiple times? If not, there isn't much of a comparison.

What children have been exposed to and what they comprehend are two different things.

From the mother of the boy in the article:

True, but 6 year olds who have been assaulted would understand what it is, even if they don't fully understand the implications of it. They would know how and they would know how it feels to be on the receiving end. They would also be repeating behavior which may seem normal to them.

See what I mean?

The mother of the offending child has a severe credibility problem with me.

I agree, completely, especially since this isn't the first time it's happened with this boy.

However, there's a small problem here. For someone to actually be legally culpable in something, which is what a school record would reflect, it stands to reason that they need to have an understanding of what they're doing.

All studies of behavioral psychology show that a child who is six doesn't have an understanding of sexuality, outside of fascination with their own private parts. The environment they've been exposed to may cause them to mimic behavior they've seen, but the idea of this being portrayed as sexual harrassment is ludicrous.

But it's not. Sexual harassment is sexual harassment, even if you want to claim the offender doesn't understand the implications of their actions. Harassment can be/is a physical act, just as much as it is mental/emotional.

Legally? Sure.

Which is what I'm talking about.

KB's right. There's no way in heck this should ever find it's way onto the boy's record, although his parents, the school, and hopefullly a damn good psychologist get heavily involved here.

On the contrary, if this is a repeated behavior, as it seems to be, it would be MORE of a reason for it to go on the student's record. It should be noted to get that damn good psychologist involved.

Because actions such as these, unwanted adavances at such a young age, are early signs of a sociopath-in-waiting. I know that sounds ominous and over-the-top for what seemingly is tepid behavior, but if it persisted after multiple objections, it's a warning sign.

To be clear, Im not saying the kid is a sociopath.

No, I understand completely what you're saying. I've seen it before.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

He's 6, that's all that needs to be said.

Don't give me this "well the girl is 6 too" shit, its that type of thinking that makes a school suspend a kid for kissing a girl on the hand (think about that for a minute). If the school doesn't condone that behavior fine, I get that but tell the kid "you're not supposed to be doing that if the girl doesn't want you to" or "that behavior isn't acceptable" and end it, if my school was like that 80% of the Elementary school would have been suspended but my school was able to handle this without going to the extreme screaming sexual harassment. So far the kid has only done this once before and since he wasn't suspended then my guess is the teacher just told him in passing "don't do that" like most teachers would do if a boy was kissing a girl on the cheek. As a kid I got in trouble more than once not completely understanding why I did, maybe that happened with the boy who kissed the girl on the cheek, maybe he didn't understand the ramifications. Not understanding the ramifications isn't a good reason to do things you're not supposed to but with something as innocent as a kiss on the hand I think it can be excused.

Whether the boy is punished isn't much of an issue for me because I don't understand all the information, what I do understand is a boy got suspended (for the reason of sexual harassment) at 6 years old for kissing a girl on the hand. How can you read that and not say "that's fucking stupid"? I'm sorry there is no justification for the school to go that overboard for a kiss on the hand.

 

[Slash-LN]

According to the girl's mom, the girl has complained about it.So is the girl who is being harassed.

To be fair when I made the thread the mother of the girl hadn't spoken to officials yet. At least that's what the article I posted said.

The school ended up taking the sexual harassment off the kid's record though.

Also with the "being told multiple times to stop and being disciplined multiple times" comment. None of that was in the article in my op. That part came from the mother of the girl involved in a later article. It said he got in trouble once before for kissing the girl on the cheek and the the other times he got in trouble were for roughhousing.

So really if people are just looking at the op and not any of the articles that came out a couple or a few days after it would probably have a difference on how they see things.

It's also not shocking to me that the mother of the girl would defend the school given that she is a teacher at the school.

 

[Slyfox696]

It's also not shocking to me that the mother of the girl would defend the school given that she is a teacher at the school.

Please explain what you mean. You seem to be suggesting a teacher, whose very career is about helping children, is willing to falsely accuse a child of sexual harassment by lying about the harassment her daughter has received just to protect her employer.

Maybe that's not what you mean, but that's kind of how it sounded. Could you explain what you meant?

 

[NegativeFeedback]

It's also not shocking to me that the mother of the girl would defend the school given that she is a teacher at the school.

Please explain what you mean. You seem to be suggesting a teacher, whose very career is about helping children, is willing to falsely accuse a child of sexual harassment by lying about the harassment her daughter has received just to protect her employer.
Maybe that's not what you mean, but that's kind of how it sounded. Could you explain what you meant?

I didn't know the girl's mother was a teacher at the school. If that's so, anything she says should be taken with a grain of salt.

Sure, her job entails that she should help children, but going against the school's decision would put her job on the line. Any teacher who speaks out against the school doesn't last very long.

When I was in high school, I once saw a teacher speak out against the school suspending 2 girls. It was a big local news story. The teacher was fired 3 semesters later. They waited and waited and waited until they were able to get rid of her without making it seem like it had anything to do with her speaking out. Employers hold grudges.

And anyway, you say that as if all teachers truly care about helping children. Most (not all) of them are teaching because they couldn't get anything else to do. "If you can't do, teach".

 

[Dan Severn's Moustache]

Personally, I think the situation should have been handled very much like a bullying issue. Whether the boy was acting maliciously or not, he was evidenced to be persistent despite all these warnings and has a previous track record of poor behaviour present. The behaviour certainly qualifies for harassment and the behaviour needs to be strictly crossed out before things get too far, but to refer to this as sexual harassment is merely a black and white perspective.

The fact of the matter is, the child might qualify for behavioural problems, especially taking into account his past suspensions and refusal to adhere to school rules, but the child does not have a grasp of the severity of sexual harassment, which is far more serious than another conviction of his (rough housing). And that's really the key here. The child may be simply extremely audacious, or have behavioural problems, but he does not understand what is sexually incorrect.

As I said above, the school need to handle this very similarly to a bullying issue. The girl's mother has clearly stated that they would like this issue to be resolved, which is in her every right, as she doesn't want her daughter to be treated this way. The school were correct to suspend the boy for what he did, but the act was not intended for the sexual pleasure of the boy or anyone else.

I do believe that a larger concern is the poor track record that the boy has, refusing to cease his behaviour despite heavy punishment. My mother works as a learning support assistant in a secondary school, and I've learnt from her that such a track record at the age of 6 would be a cause for concern.

 

[Slash-LN]

Please explain what you mean. You seem to be suggesting a teacher, whose very career is about helping children, is willing to falsely accuse a child of sexual harassment by lying about the harassment her daughter has received just to protect her employer.

Maybe that's not what you mean, but that's kind of how it sounded. Could you explain what you meant?

Feedback's response to this is pretty much what I would have said.

It doesn't surprise me that the mother would come out and say she fully supports the school for adding the sexual harassment to the six year old's file because if she said anything against what the school did she could potentially be setting herself up for a hard time. Any time you speak out against actions your employer takes it usually doesn't end well.

Even if the shoe was on the other foot and it was her kid doing the same thing I could see her either not saying anything about it all or if she did saying she supports the school's decision.

I didn't mean to imply that she was making false statements or anything of the sort.

If she wasn't a staff member of the school though and she felt it was a little extreme to place the sexual harassment part in the file of the kid's record she would be more free to make that opinion known without fear of backlash from her employer.

 

[Slyfox696]

I didn't know the girl's mother was a teacher at the school. If that's so, anything she says should be taken with a grain of salt.

Sure, her job entails that she should help children, but going against the school's decision would put her job on the line. Any teacher who speaks out against the school doesn't last very long.

Completely false.

If it's a public school (and it appears it is), anything the teacher said would be protected by 1st Amendment rights. Furthermore, if she didn't believe the school's story, why comment on it at all?

Obviously the teacher COULD be lying, but there's really not much point. On the other hand, it makes FAR more sense for the mother of the other child to be spinning the story.

When I was in high school, I once saw a teacher speak out against the school suspending 2 girls. It was a big local news story. The teacher was fired 3 semesters later. They waited and waited and waited until they were able to get rid of her without making it seem like it had anything to do with her speaking out. Employers hold grudges.

Maybe, just maybe, it had nothing to do with what she said, but rather many other possibilities? I can tell you, with firsthand experience, there are many reasons a teacher can be discharged that most people will never know.

And anyway, you say that as if all teachers truly care about helping children.

Most do. I have absolutely zero doubt I know far more teachers than you do.

Most (not all) of them are teaching because they couldn't get anything else to do. "If you can't do, teach".

While your mindless repeating of ridiculous saying doesn't surprise me, it does sadden me more people don't think about how stupid the phrase is.

If being a teacher was really as easy as is claimed, then why wouldn't everyone want to be a teacher? The fact is being a teacher is far more difficult than most people ever realize.

Feedback's response to this is pretty much what I would have said.

Then I truly pity you.

It doesn't surprise me that the mother would come out and say she fully supports the school for adding the sexual harassment to the six year old's file because if she said anything against what the school did she could potentially be setting herself up for a hard time. Any time you speak out against actions your employer takes it usually doesn't end well.

Except, as I noted to Feedback, at a public school and employee's speech is protected by the 1st Amendment (unlike a private employer). Furthermore, as I noted above, if she didn't agree with the position of the school, why comment at all?

Your position doesn't make sense.

Even if the shoe was on the other foot and it was her kid doing the same thing I could see her either not saying anything about it all or if she did saying she supports the school's decision.

But it wasn't her kid doing the same thing. That's something very important to keep in mind.

I didn't mean to imply that she was making false statements or anything of the sort.

But isn't that exactly what you're saying?

If she wasn't a staff member of the school though and she felt it was a little extreme to place the sexual harassment part in the file of the kid's record she would be more free to make that opinion known without fear of backlash from her employer.

If she thought it was extreme, why comment on that particular part of it at all?

 

[Bythedockofthebay]

True, but 6 year olds who have been assaulted would understand what it is, even if they don't fully understand the implications of it. They would know how and they would know how it feels to be on the receiving end. They would also be repeating behavior which may seem normal to them.

That's a large leap though, just because the kid does something wrong doesn't mean he's been assaulted or anything of the like. Maybe they are just romantic people who show their affection and he is too. Is he right no? But jumping to that conclusion is not only harsh but uncalled for.

The mother of the offending child has a severe credibility problem with me.

Doesn't mean she's sexually abusing or mistreating her child, just because you don't think she's credible doesn't mean that you should jump to such a harsh conclusion

But it's not. Sexual harassment is sexual harassment, even if you want to claim the offender doesn't understand the implications of their actions. Harassment can be/is a physical act, just as much as it is mental/emotional.

You have a point but even in court there are underlying things that decide a person's guilt. If you don't comprehend what you're doing, especially in the case of a child, the punishment may be lessened or even erased from the record completely.

On the contrary, if this is a repeated behavior, as it seems to be, it would be MORE of a reason for it to go on the student's record. It should be noted to get that damn good psychologist involved.

If it's repeated behavior, I agree he should be punished. Maybe it should go on his record, but as sexual harassment? I just fundamentally disagree with you. If a mentally handicap person gives unwanted hugs to people, and does it to someone multiple times, do you think the punishment will be the same as for a normal adult? Of course not, so intent and understanding CLEARLY has something to do with it. I don't think you'd be calling for the mentally handicapped person to have it put on their record that they're a sexually predator or of committing the act of sexual harassment. And I totally agree a psychologist should be brought in here.