6 year old accused of sexual harassment

[Slyfox696]

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.

It's possible, but the continuous behavior, especially after being disciplined multiple times, gives my hypothesis credibility.

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

I did not connect her credibility to sexual assault. I never even suggested the mother was the one doing it.

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.

The punishment may be lessened, but it doesn't change the nature and seriousness of the offense.

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?

No, but we're not talking about (unless there is information we're not aware of) someone who is mentally deficient. We're talking about someone who possesses the same cognitive abilities of others his own age.

 

[DarksideEric]

The punishment may be lessened, but it doesn't change the nature and seriousness of the offense.

Kissing a hand twice is a serious offense?

 

[Slash-LN]

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.

Because no one has ever held a grudge and found an excuse to punish someone indirectly. Right? While the school couldn't directly punish her for the comments it's a very real possibility they could harbor resentment against her and look for another excuse to punish her.

She could also in general be treated differently by the people she works with.

Why wouldn't she comment on it? Refusing to do the interview with the newspaper or just saying "no comment" to that particular part would probably raise flags.

Your position is the one that doesn't make sense.

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

Pretty sure you're missing the point entirely. It's easy to condemn another persons child. When it's your own you're likely to have a very different response. Most parents want to protect their children. Especially when they're six.

Like the mother of the boy involved. If she were on the other side of the story she would also likely have a different opinion on the matter.

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

How are you confusing "agrees with the term "sexual harassment" being put into a kids file with making up lies that the kid kissed her daughter?

I'm not accusing her of making anything up or lying.

I stated that it doesn't surprise me that she's taking the school's side as the punishment being appropriate.

Your argument makes zero sense. It would be like the family of someone who was killed saying they agree with the killer getting the death penalty but by the logic you're using they're making up a lie that the defendant killed their loved one.

Agreeing with a penalty has nothing to do with making up the action that caused the penalty. I really don't see how you're not getting that.

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

By not commenting on that part at all would be an indication that she doesn't agree with the penalty. So it's easier to say that she does.

Again I don't know if she does or doesn't. Agreeing with your employer is definitely the easier route to take though.

 

[Eyebrows]

No, but we're not talking about (unless there is information we're not aware of) someone who is mentally deficient. We're talking about someone who possesses the same cognitive abilities of others his own age.

I see your point. However, when you're slapping the label of sexual harrassment on it you are measuring a child's cognitive ability and understanding of an adult concept and inviting a comparison with an adults understanding of that same concept. Labelling is dangerous at that sort of age. Extremely damaging.

That's the main issue here. Not that he was punished for it. I honestly can't say whether he deserves it or not because all I've seen reported is that he kissed a girl on the cheek once, then kissed her on the hand at a later date. There may have been more but that's all I've seen. Roughhousing could mean a variety of things. Maybe he was just loud and boisterous, maybe it was worse. Maybe he has ADHD and we should throw ritalin at him until he develops methylphenidate psychosis.

Anyhow, I found the girls mother's Facebook page. I didn't search for it. That would be a tad creepy and excessive. It was linked in an article I read about the story as she'd 'shared' it publically. There's this gem though about her own son.

"Anyone have insight as to why my son is acting out with violence at school - and only on the days he is with his SOB father? Regular Friday ritual - 1) pick up JW and talk with him about not beating up other kids or telling them he is going to cut their heads off, 2) pick the girls up and get all the details of their vomiting, diarrhea, fevers, snot, etc... 3) spend the rest of the evening, all night, and following morning, at minimum, nursing the girls physically and my boy emotionally to try to undo the damage of the last two days with him. Double edged sword. You can call me Mama Grizzly!"

So I find it very hypocritical that she thinks this kid should be labelled as a sexual deviant when her own son acts like this. Especially since she bitches out the parents in the public messages that she 'shared' which, if this happened here, would certainly have been met with sanctions.

I guarantee that if it had been a girl kissing a boy against his will, that people would have just said "How cute!" and nothing would have come of it. It comes across more like a staunch, repressed Christian, whose husband cheated on her and seems to be a bit of a dick and possibly violent, transferring her own negative experiences onto a child of 6.

 

[Slyfox696]

Kissing a hand twice is a serious offense?

The mother, who is also a teacher in the school district, said Hunter had tried to kiss her daughter "over and over" without her permission, according to Canon City Daily Record.

"I've had to coach her about what to do when you don't want someone touching you, but they won't stop," Masters-Ownbey told the newspaper.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/12/us/six-year-old-kissing-girl-suspension/

Yes, I'd say repeated unwanted advances and undesired physical touching of a 6 year old qualifies as serious.

For a second I forgot you were a teacher. I apologize for what I wrote, and won't try and argue it. But in my defense, I did say "not all". I am confident that you are a very capable teacher.

Your words don't bother nearly so much as the idea there are people who believe what you said.

Because no one has ever held a grudge and found an excuse to punish someone indirectly. Right? While the school couldn't directly punish her for the comments it's a very real possibility they could harbor resentment against her and look for another excuse to punish her.

Sure, they COULD hold a grudge...but it could also be the mother of the 6 year old girl didn't like her daughter being the subject of harassment and thought the school was right in protecting any and all 6 year old children from such behavior. Furthermore, it's not like the teacher would have forgotten this situation happened and if she were to be fired, my guess is a lawsuit would be coming the school's way, if the school had not shown just cause for firing.

Now take the time to think about this critically...do you REALLY think your narrative makes sense? That the teacher thought the school was wrong in protecting her own child but came out to news media to say she supported the school when she could have said nothing at all?

Your scenario makes very little sense. On the other hand, it DOES make sense that an angry parent of troublesome child would try to humiliate the school who is trying to discipline the child for actions which were wrong. THAT scenario happens all the time.

She could also in general be treated differently by the people she works with.

Because she doesn't speak out about something? Why?

Why wouldn't she comment on it? Refusing to do the interview with the newspaper or just saying "no comment" to that particular part would probably raise flags.

Your position is the one that doesn't make sense.

No, you don't seem to understand how these things work. First of all, no one at the school can comment on the other child at all. They cannot say anything about the boy due to federal privacy laws. However, the teacher CAN talk about her daughter (even though she is a student), but no one in the world would blame a mother from not talking about her 6 year old child to national media. Schools HAVE to decline interviews about student discipline situations, so all the teacher would have had to say is "I am prohibited by federal law to discuss the situation" and there would have been no flags raised. She chose to instead simply discuss her daughter and show support for the school.

These are things I see and discuss all the time. Your position doesn't make sense. The idea that not talking about something which is prohibited by law from talking about or not talking about your 6 year old daughter to national news media should raise flags is beyond ridiculous.

Pretty sure you're missing the point entirely. It's easy to condemn another persons child. When it's your own you're likely to have a very different response. Most parents want to protect their children. Especially when they're six.

I'm pretty sure I'm not missing the point at all. The point is that it ISN'T her child who was doing the harassing, it was her child who was being harassed. Making predictions about what the teacher would have done if the roles were reversed is irrelevant, since it's NOT what happened. What DID happen was this mother's 6 year old daughter was being harassed. What parent WOULDN'T be upset and outraged at that?

Like the mother of the boy involved. If she were on the other side of the story she would also likely have a different opinion on the matter.

As I said before, the mother in this story has no credibility to me. I also think it's very telling that she's not on the other side of the story, that her son has a history of troublesome behavior and unwanted advances toward this girl and continues to do so.

Had I been this boy, I would have had to go through the school day standing up, because my ass would have been worn out by my parents. The constant harassing behavior and other wrongful behaviors at the age of SIX suggest a lack of proper discipline at home.

How are you confusing "agrees with the term "sexual harassment" being put into a kids file with making up lies that the kid kissed her daughter?

Your entire post has been that the teacher is just saying things to protect the school even if she doesn't believe it. So either the teacher does believe the school is right to protect her 6 year old daughter from these unwanted advances (which means she's telling the truth and your entire point is a waste of time), or she is voluntarily lying to falsely accuse a 6 year old of sexual harassment.

There's really no second direction here.

I'm not accusing her of making anything up or lying.

You kind of are insinuating it. Your entire position is that the teacher isn't credible because she's a teacher and is willing to lie for the school to protect the school/job. Our conversation has basically been based around that assertion.

I stated that it doesn't surprise me that she's taking the school's side as the punishment being appropriate.

Because if she didn't, then the school would hold a grudge and maybe fire her or her coworkers would treat her differently.

These are your own words.

Your argument makes zero sense.

My argument that a mother does not want her 6 year old daughter to be harassed and supports the school in protecting her daughter doesn't make sense?

Really?

Agreeing with a penalty has nothing to do with making up the action that caused the penalty. I really don't see how you're not getting that.

It's probably where you claimed she doesn't have credibility because she could just be saying that to protect her job. Here, I'll remind you what you 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.

By not commenting on that part at all would be an indication that she doesn't agree with the penalty. So it's easier to say that she does.

That's an incredibly fallacious argument, known as argumentum e silentio or argument from silence (sometimes known as silence implies consent). The idea that not saying something implies approval of something is fallacious.

I see your point. However, when you're slapping the label of sexual harrassment on it you are measuring a child's cognitive ability and understanding of an adult concept and inviting a comparison with an adults understanding of that same concept. Labelling is dangerous at that sort of age. Extremely damaging.

Not identifying this child's behavior could be even more dangerous.

 

[Dan Severn's Moustache]

Whilst I find myself strongly agreeing with Slyfox on the girl's mother having every right to protect her child from harassment, there's something I want to nitpick.

As I said before, the mother in this story has no credibility to me. I also think it's very telling that she's not on the other side of the story, that her son has a history of troublesome behavior and unwanted advances toward this girl and continues to do so.

Had I been this boy, I would have had to go through the school day standing up, because my ass would have been worn out by my parents. The constant harassing behavior and other wrongful behaviors at the age of SIX suggest a lack of proper discipline at home.

This is ad hominem. You're attacking the boy's mother because her son is poorly behaved, despite being unaware of why the boy behaves the way he does. As I've stated above, the boy could be suffering from behavioural problems which have yet to be diagnosed, and thus steps need to be taken to investigate the matter further. Yes, the mother would have to be unperceptive to disregard the boy's behaviour as irregular entirely (she did after all simply state that she wants the sexual aspect of the harassment removed from the record), but to discredit her entire argument because of it is unfair.

The boy's mother does not believe the act was for the sexual pleasure of the boy or anyone else. The girl's mother believes that the act was indeed harassment, which I agree with, and the boy should have been punished. To label the act sexual is a misjudgement due to the numerous factors that are involved.

 

[LSN80]

Seeing that we're now down to nitpicking, I'm tempted to close the thread. Unless something new develops, I believe everything that can be said here has been so. Still, I 'll leave it open for now, unless it truly gets repetitive.

My closing thoughts are this : It's something that should be on the boy's record, but not as a sexual harrassment thing. As a behavioral problem, one unlikely dealt with properly at home? Absolutely. But to label this child a sexual deviant for kisses on the hand or cheek at age 6 is a ludicrous concept, in my eyes. Having that follow him around leads way to defeatist attitude and behavior down the road.

Still, the behavior bears concern, because it's repetitive without slowing despite numerous warnings and, it seems, punishment. I suggested the introduction of a good psychologist to the mix, and I stand by that. Repetitive behavior such as this unchecked has turned aggressive before, after events that seemingly start innocuous.

Nip it in the bud, both at home and at school. They need to be on the same page here, and some behavioral therapy seems necessary as well. T he most important thing is that all players involved be on the same page both as to understanding the behavior, and how to deal with it.

 

[ABMorales787]

Something in the boys background seems to indicate that he's exposed to explicit content. Maybe he saw a "telenovela" or something. Must people would laugh at what I'm writing but think about it. You're an impressionable 6 year old and you see a man and a woman being all romantic and explicitly displaying it on national television. If you've seen one of these you know these scenes come about constantly. The parents of this child clearly aren't too high on the disciple department. So the boys curiosity goes unchecked. I'm saying "telenovela" as an example of course. I've seen them and I've seen kids go curios from watching them.

The school can't do much though. They can't such dabble into the lives of the parents because the child is displaying such odd behavior. They can ask, but that's as far as it will go. That's for the law to decide and the school is not the law. They have to label the child as a sexual deviant. It may be cruel but the school should not take pity on the child because he's 6. Today it might be kissing but tomorrow it can be much damn worse.

It's best to do whatever is possible prevent further dilemma.

 

[LSN80]

Something in the boys background seems to indicate that he's exposed to explicit content.

If you believe the mother(which Sly does not), one of her biggest complaints is that the boy is being exposed to the terminology and meanings of sex at such an early age. If we're to believe her, however, it would have to be inadvertant, no?

Maybe he saw a "telenovela" or something. Must people would laugh at what I'm writing but think about it. You're an impressionable 6 year old and you see a man and a woman being all romantic and explicitly displaying it on national television.

And this is what I mean by inadvertant. This makes perfect sense. Perhaps he stumbled upon something on one of the subscription channels, with the parents having failed to use the proper parental controls.

Still, I laughed at it a bit. Just the image, I suppose.

The school can't do much though. They can't such dabble into the lives of the parents because the child is displaying such odd behavior. They can ask, but that's as far as it will go.

They can set him up with school regulated counseling with a therapist/psychologist. All schools employ them, and any worth a grain of salt has training in behavioral psychology, including sex therapy for people of all ages.

They have to label the child as a sexual deviant. It may be cruel but the school should not take pity on the child because he's 6. Today it might be kissing but tomorrow it can be much damn worse.

I agree, and I don't. Maybe it's the empathic part of me, but it is cruel, and worse, it will follow him around for some time. Use harrassment in his file. Give the parents choices. He goes to therapy for "such and such" amount of time, complete with progress notes from the therapist/psychologist. He's successful and no incidents occur for "X" amount of time, his record is cleared completely. That way, it's much more a carrot then stick approach.

If the parents of the boy refuse, that's where you take the stick, not carrot approach, and label the boy a sexual deviant, as you suggested.

It's best to do whatever is possible prevent further dilemma.

In the least restrictive/least damaging way, yes. Labeling him a sexual deviant is neither.

 

[ABMorales787]

If you believe the mother(which Sly does not), one of her biggest complaints is that the boy is being exposed to the terminology and meanings of sex at such an early age. If we're to believe her, however, it would have to be inadvertant, no?

And this is what I mean by inadvertant. This makes perfect sense. Perhaps he stumbled upon something on one of the subscription channels, with the parents having failed to use the proper parental controls.


Still, I laughed at it a bit. Just the image, I suppose.

Not really. It could very well be the case that they just sit down with the kid and watch something with no discretion. God knows I did when I wasn't with my mother as a kid.

They can set him up with school regulated counseling with a therapist/psychologist. All schools employ them, and any worth a grain of salt has training in behavioral psychology, including sex therapy for people of all ages.

For the sake of context, my school never had never had counseling.

I agree, and I don't. Maybe it's the empathic part of me, but it is cruel, and worse, it will follow him around for some time. Use harrassment in his file. Give the parents choices. He goes to therapy for "such and such" amount of time, complete with progress notes from the therapist/psychologist. He's successful and no incidents occur for "X" amount of time, his record is cleared completely. That way, it's much more a carrot then stick approach.

If the parents of the boy refuse, that's where you take the stick, not carrot, approach, and label the boy a sexual deviant, as you suggested.


In the least restrictive/least damaging way, yes. Labeling him a sexual deviant is neither.

The problem is that the seeds are there. He could very well be counseled and such and even be considered cleaned of his issues but if by some chance the boy relapses, which has sadly happened a lot, that smudge that indicated something was wrong long ago will not be there. And if that happens at a more advance age, the consequences will be far greater than if we knew the seeds were already there at an age where he couldn't tell what he was doing wrong.

 

[LSN80]

Not really. It could very well be the case that they just sit down with the kid and watch something with no discretion. God knows I did when I wasn't with my mother as a kid.

How old were you? We can question the mother of the boy's credibility all we like, as Sly has done,(And he knows more about school parents then I, I imagine)but she was very indignant that the boy was even being expose the term sex. With that being said, it could have been something like a soap opera he saw with his parents, or even flipping through channels.

For the sake of context, my school never had never had counseling.

All schools, at least to my awareness, have at least one licensced therapist in the building, and each school district has at least one school psychlogist.

The problem is that the seeds are there. He could very well be counseled and such and even be considered cleaned of his issues but if by some chance the boy relapses, which has sadly happened a lot, that smudge that indicated something was wrong long ago will not be there.

Why does it have to be there in the case that he relapses? Does it matter at that point? Even with privacy laws, therapists can be compelled to release records, and if he were to offend, I can't imagine a therapist that wouldn't. Those records would be there anyways. And you're right, reoccurences DO happen, but in cases like this boy, they are so very few and far between.

Why punish the multitude for the sins of the few? The therapy records from the school or the outside therapist could be used just as easily as concurrence that there had been past behavior, without hurting the record of someone so young.

I don't have a problem with the record of harrassment, it's that of labeling him a sexual deviant that I do.

And if that happens at a more advance age, the consequences will be far greater than if we knew the seeds were already there at an age where he couldn't tell what he was doing wrong.

So what is a school/society to do with the boy? Isolate him? Have his every last move scutinized, his motive for every behavior questioned? To have the label "sexual deviant" actively follow him around, especially in this case, is unfounded in reality.

The only reason would be to look for warning signs at said advanced age amongst faculty and staff, and I'm fine with that. Leave it in his record as general harrassment, which shows it's not the everyday behavior you see from normal children, but at the same time, that it's not sociopathic behavior either.

And then the warning signs can be looked for without such a harsh, and, quite frankly, unearned label.

 

[Slash-LN]

No, you don't seem to understand how these things work. First of all, no one at the school can comment on the other child at all. They cannot say anything about the boy due to federal privacy laws. However, the teacher CAN talk about her daughter (even though she is a student), but no one in the world would blame a mother from not talking about her 6 year old child to national media. Schools HAVE to decline interviews about student discipline situations, so all the teacher would have had to say is "I am prohibited by federal law to discuss the situation" and there would have been no flags raised. She chose to instead simply discuss her daughter and show support for the school.

Then shouldn't there be some action against her for saying

"After they got in trouble, one boy stopped but the other boy apparently didn't get it,"

So in that instance not only is she talking about the boy involved she also mentions that another boy was involved at another time an had gotten in trouble and then stopped. I guess she's allowed to say that because she didn't mention his name? But with what you said above commenting on the boy who the article is about and that he had been in trouble previously it seems like she wouldn't be allowed to say that.


http://www.canoncitydailyrecord.com...r-girl-involved-kissing-discipline-speaks-out

Although it was from her Facebook page she allowed the newspaper to print it.

I'm pretty sure I'm not missing the point at all. The point is that it ISN'T her child who was doing the harassing, it was her child who was being harassed. Making predictions about what the teacher would have done if the roles were reversed is irrelevant, since it's NOT what happened. What DID happen was this mother's 6 year old daughter was being harassed. What parent WOULDN'T be upset and outraged at that?

As I said before, the mother in this story has no credibility to me. I also think it's very telling that she's not on the other side of the story, that her son has a history of troublesome behavior and unwanted advances toward this girl and continues to do so.

How can you in one instance say since the roles weren't reversed it's irrelevant to think about how one parent would react and then in the very next paragraph say "it's very telling that she's not on the other side of the story."

That's a huge contradiction. You either take into account how the parent would react to the situation on both sides or you take that out of the equation on both sides. You can't have it both ways.

Your entire post has been that the teacher is just saying things to protect the school even if she doesn't believe it. So either the teacher does believe the school is right to protect her 6 year old daughter from these unwanted advances (which means she's telling the truth and your entire point is a waste of time), or she is voluntarily lying to falsely accuse a 6 year old of sexual harassment.

There's really no second direction here.

You kind of are insinuating it. Your entire position is that the teacher isn't credible because she's a teacher and is willing to lie for the school to protect the school/job. Our conversation has basically been based around that assertion.

Protect the school? I clearly stated that it's safer for her to agree with the punishment to protect herself. I never said anything about protecting the school. You can take it how ever you want. But you're wrong.

I never once said she isn't credible. I've never questioned her story that her daughter was kissed on the cheek or hand by this boy or that the boy had gotten in trouble for it before.

My argument that a mother does not want her 6 year old daughter to be harassed and supports the school in protecting her daughter doesn't make sense?

Really?

The fact that you were arguing that the mother would/could agree with the school's level of punishment to protect her job is what didn't make sense.

And since you have agreed that the school could hold a grudge and find a reason to punish her later it shows I was right.

 

[ABMorales787]

How old were you?

Let''s see. Played Mortal Kombat 3 when I was 5. Hell, I don't even remember when was the first time I'd sit with my parents and watch soap operas. I remember drawing Wonder Woman topless in 4th grade.

We can question the mother of the boy's credibility all we like, as Sly has done,(And he knows more about school parents then I, I imagine)but she was very indignant that the boy was even being expose the term sex. With that being said, it could have been something like a soap opera he saw with his parents, or even flipping through channels.

Different kids have different levels in which their imagination runs wild. If it's not the parents, then the kid is gonna have to explain where he saw whatever he tried emulate and that ain't easy.

All schools, at least to my awareness, have at least one licensced therapist in the building, and each school district has at least one school psychlogist.

Keep in mind, I'm from a different country. I honestly did not know it was required for schools to have a certified psychologist until you told me.

Why does it have to be there in the case that he relapses? Does it matter at that point? Even with privacy laws, therapists can be compelled to release records, and if he were to offend, I can't imagine a therapist that wouldn't. Those records would be there anyways. And you're right, reoccurences DO happen, but in cases like this boy, they are so very few and far between.

Why punish the multitude for the sins of the few? The therapy records from the school or the outside therapist could be used just as easily as concurrence that there had been past behavior, without hurting the record of someone so young.

If he were to transfer to another school, there would be no record of what happened. Should he do the same in that other school for some reason they'll find his school record doesn't match his medical.

I don't have a problem with the record of harrassment, it's that of labeling him a sexual deviant that I do.


So what is a school/society to do with the boy? Isolate him? Have his every last move scutinized, his motive for every behavior questioned? To have the label "sexual deviant" actively follow him around, especially in this case, is unfounded in reality.

The only reason would be to look for warning signs at said advanced age amongst faculty and staff, and I'm fine with that. Leave it in his record as general harrassment, which shows it's not the everyday behavior you see from normal children, but at the same time, that it's not sociopathic behavior either.

And then the warning signs can be looked for without such a harsh, and, quite frankly, unearned label.

I think the issue you see is people will unquestionably start accusations due to what he's labelled as and ignore his age. That's pretty understandable. But at the same time you're assuming anyone that looks into the case in the future will just label him as someone dangerous and not take anything else into account. If they do it, that's wrong of them. There's a reason that when you look for jobs, they search for criminal records but make it clear that having one doesn't mean you're not getting the job.

Labelling his issues as "sexual harassment" or even just "harassment" would technically be worse. That indicates that what he does, he does on purpose, knowing full well what he's doing. As opposed to "deviation" that says his views on sexuality are off.

The schools judgment in itself is not wrong. If people start treating him differently though, then the one's doing wrong are them. Not the school.

 

[LSN80]

Different kids have different levels in which their imagination runs wild. If it's not the parents, then the kid is gonna have to explain where he saw whatever he tried emulate and that ain't easy.

Good point. I know that it wasn't until about 4th grade for myself that I began to look at girls in a "hey, she's attractive" way, but my twin sister, who blossomed early physically, was noticed and harrasssed in 2nd grade by other boys, one who persistently grabbed her breasts. It went on for some time with little fanfare until he tore her sweater as she was trying to get away.

It was expunged from his record the next year. Even to this day, I remember it clearly, because it was a big deal in the school. But it didn't happen again that year, so off his record it went.

Keep in mind, I'm from a different country. I honestly did not know it was required for schools to have a certified psychologist until you told me.

You don't have to be from another country, I'd bet most people don't. The only reason I do is because it's the field I work in, and information sharing between, whether it be a school therapist or psychologist, is vital to me when working with kids.

If he were to transfer to another school, there would be no record of what happened. Should he do the same in that other school for some reason they'll find his school record doesn't match his medical.

But the records from the therapist would and should be available.

I think the issue you see is people will unquestionably start accusations due to what he's labelled as and ignore his age. That's pretty understandable. But at the same time you're assuming anyone that looks into the case in the future will just label him as someone dangerous and not take anything else into account. If they do it, that's wrong of them.

You're right. But it comes from experience in seeing it happen. I've seen kids, observed them in schools, and because of a past history of poor behavior(generally speaking, not necessarily sexually), they were ostracized. Teachers that looked for the slightest reason to be punitive, because they came in with a mark on their school record from times past.

Most teachers aren't like this, I've observed, but the trend I've seen has been in poorer-area schools, where crime is more rampant.

There's a reason that when you look for jobs, they search for criminal records but make it clear that having one doesn't mean you're not getting the job.

Sure, it depends on the crime. But there are many places who would automatically disqualify someone if they had a sexually related offense on their record.

Just the same as there as some people within the school, no matter how good their intentions, that would treat him differently as a result of this being on his record.

Labelling his issues as "sexual harassment" or even just "harassment" would technically be worse. That indicates that what he does, he does on purpose, knowing full well what he's doing. As opposed to "deviation" that says his views on sexuality are off.

I'm referring to labeling it as an incident, not as an ongoing pattern of behavior, I suppose, but to be a sexual deviant, there's two
requirements, in the truest sense.

1. Pleasure has to be taken from the behavior- I'm sure we can agree that this is the case here.

2. The desire is to inflict pain, not to be playful- And there's where I have my problem. Kissing a girl on the hand or cheek, by a six year old, is very much a playful behavior. It may be wrong, but it's not deviant. Deviant implies some kind of disorder, that the person is willfully attempting to inflict pain to gain pleasure.

The schools judgment in itself is not wrong. If people start treating him differently though, then the one's doing wrong are them. Not the school.

It would just be a school record, so the only people who could treat him differently would be superiors within the school.

To be clear, I think you're pretty spot-on with most of what you're saying here, and your viewpoint isn't a bad one.

The fact that you were arguing that the mother would/could agree with the school's level of punishment to protect her job is what didn't make sense.

That's not what Sly is saying at all. He's saying that the mother agrees with what the school did, and that her desire is to see her daughter free from harrassment. In this case, she's speaking as a parent, not a teacher. She just so happens to be a teacher at the school, but that's really irrelevant here.

She's speaking and acting as a parent wanting to prevent future harrassment of her daughter. That's a good parent.

 

[Eyebrows]

You're right. But it comes from experience in seeing it happen. I've seen kids, observed them in schools, and because of a past history of poor behavior(generally speaking, not necessarily sexually), they were ostracized. Teachers that looked for the slightest reason to be punitive, because they came in with a mark on their school record from times past.

Most teachers aren't like this, I've observed, but the trend I've seen has been in poorer-area schools, where crime is more rampant.

Just the same as there as some people within the school, no matter how good their intentions, that would treat him differently as a result of this being on his record.

Agreed. Have you studied Howard Becker?

There's every possibility that slapping the sexual deviant label on him will lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy. It isn't only the superiors at school. This is all over the news. The other kids might not know exactly what is going on but they'll be able to catch on. Parents of other kids know about it too.

I'm going to reiterate that if this had been a girl doing it to a boy, nothing would have happened. There is a real problem today with boys behaviour being demonised.

I still remember playing kiss-tag in Year 3 and 4. Not sure what grade that corresponds to in the US. It was as natural a part of child socialization as learning to share toys in the sandpit.

Thankfully the school changed what was on the record and removed the sexual aspect of it.

 

[Slash-LN]

That's not what Sly is saying at all. He's saying that the mother agrees with what the school did, and that her desire is to see her daughter free from harrassment. In this case, she's speaking as a parent, not a teacher. She just so happens to be a teacher at the school, but that's really irrelevant here.

She's speaking and acting as a parent wanting to prevent future harrassment of her daughter. That's a good parent.

That's not what he said though. His initial response...

"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."

Nowhere in my comment did I ever say anything about her falsely accusing the child or lying about what the kid may have done to her daughter.

He then later says that I'm talking about her credibility which I have said nothing about her credibility.

His first response to me was completely about her making false accusations against the boy involved and had nothing to do with my comment about it making sense for her to agree with the penalty the kid received.

Nor did I say she was trying to protect the school. In fact that's the exact opposite of what I said. It protects her. If she even disagrees with it as it was a rhetorical comment. We have no idea if she does or not.

I understand she's speaking as a parent but given she is also an employee of the school it does weigh in. That's why in a later post I made the point that if she was on the other side of this and her kid was the problem child odds are she also wouldn't speak out against the school. It wouldn't be in her best interest.

That's the point I'm trying to get across.

I never questioned her credibility which is the main basis of his argument.

Maybe I'm not wording my responses right? Right now this is just a big back and forth circle that's gaining zero ground on either side.

I also need to point out that I made an error in my post about her working for the school. She doesn't work in that particular school but works in the same district. That doesn't change my opinion though.

 

[Slyfox696]

As I've gotten older, my patience for going around in circles has diminished considerably. I wasn't even going to reply, but felt I should. But I'm just going to make a couple of quick comments, because I'm just repeating myself at this point.

Whilst I find myself strongly agreeing with Slyfox on the girl's mother having every right to protect her child from harassment, there's something I want to nitpick.

This is ad hominem. You're attacking the boy's mother because her son is poorly behaved, despite being unaware of why the boy behaves the way he does. As I've stated above, the boy could be suffering from behavioural problems which have yet to be diagnosed, and thus steps need to be taken to investigate the matter further. Yes, the mother would have to be unperceptive to disregard the boy's behaviour as irregular entirely (she did after all simply state that she wants the sexual aspect of the harassment removed from the record), but to discredit her entire argument because of it is unfair.

The boy's mother does not believe the act was for the sexual pleasure of the boy or anyone else. The girl's mother believes that the act was indeed harassment, which I agree with, and the boy should have been punished. To label the act sexual is a misjudgement due to the numerous factors that are involved.

It's not an ad hominem. The boy's behavior at school is not an irrelevant piece of information regarding discipline and, both as a teacher and as an adult, I have seen most discipline problems at school the result of poor discipline at home.

Combine the constant poor behavior despite multiple instances of discipline and the fact the mother was willing to expose her own child's harassment to the world just to get her way, you can begin to see why I have a hard time swallowing the boy's mother's credibility.

Then shouldn't there be some action against her for saying

"After they got in trouble, one boy stopped but the other boy apparently didn't get it,"

So in that instance not only is she talking about the boy involved she also mentions that another boy was involved at another time an had gotten in trouble and then stopped. I guess she's allowed to say that because she didn't mention his name? But with what you said above commenting on the boy who the article is about and that he had been in trouble previously it seems like she wouldn't be allowed to say that.


http://www.canoncitydailyrecord.com...r-girl-involved-kissing-discipline-speaks-out

Although it was from her Facebook page she allowed the newspaper to print it.



How can you in one instance say since the roles weren't reversed it's irrelevant to think about how one parent would react and then in the very next paragraph say "it's very telling that she's not on the other side of the story."

That's a huge contradiction. You either take into account how the parent would react to the situation on both sides or you take that out of the equation on both sides. You can't have it both ways.



Protect the school? I clearly stated that it's safer for her to agree with the punishment to protect herself. I never said anything about protecting the school. You can take it how ever you want. But you're wrong.

I never once said she isn't credible. I've never questioned her story that her daughter was kissed on the cheek or hand by this boy or that the boy had gotten in trouble for it before.



The fact that you were arguing that the mother would/could agree with the school's level of punishment to protect her job is what didn't make sense.

And since you have agreed that the school could hold a grudge and find a reason to punish her later it shows I was right.

1) Regarding FERPA laws, as long as she didn't name the other boy, it's probably okay. If she did name the other boy, it's a very gray area with the woman serving as both employee and mother. All in all, she shouldn't have brought anyone else into it at all, but regarding discipline for her, it kind of depends on several different circumstances.

2) I can say it's irrelevant and then say it's telling because I exist in reality, not hypotheticals?

3)

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.

You're simply playing word games at this point if you tell me you didn't claim the teacher was supporting the school to protect her job (which is EXACTLY what I said in my last post).

4) I wasn't the one who argued the mother made her comments to protect her job, YOU did. You can't even keep your own arguments straight.

5) If you really think my comments show you to be right, then you're quite delusional. I've made it very clear your position makes very little sense.

 

[Slash-LN]

4) I wasn't the one who argued the mother made her comments to protect her job, YOU did. You can't even keep your own arguments straight.

Um that's exactly what I said.

You claimed I said she was making things up to protect the school. Or implying that she was making things up to protect the school.

I said that I said nothing about her protecting the school and that I was talking about her protecting her job/herself.

You're the one that can't keep the argument straight.

My post...

"Protect the school? I clearly stated that it's safer for her to agree with the punishment to protect herself. I never said anything about protecting the school. You can take it how ever you want. But you're wrong. "

It is stated very clearly and in very simple terms.

 

[Slyfox696]

Um that's exactly what I said.

Wow, I guess I have to show you...

The fact that you were arguing that the mother would/could agree with the school's level of punishment to protect her job is what didn't make sense.

I never said that, YOU did. I said it was silly to claim she would come out and lie due to various reasons. You were the one who said she would support the school, even if she didn't believe it, because of her job.

You can't even remember your own arguments.

You claimed I said she was making things up to protect the school. Or implying that she was making things up to protect the school.

I said that I said nothing about her protecting the school and that I was talking about her protecting her job/herself.

Here's EXACTLY what I said:

You kind of are insinuating it. Your entire position is that the teacher isn't credible because she's a teacher and is willing to lie for the school to protect the school/job. Our conversation has basically been based around that assertion.

This isn't hard to understand. Well, apparently it is for you.

You're the one that can't keep the argument straight.

Says the person who is attributing to me a position you took.

It is stated very clearly and in very simple terms.

You don't even seem to understand what we're talking about at this point.