Esmeralda
Diamond Member
- Feb 5, 2013
- 28,688
- 21,546
It it was that big of a deal, he could have stayed home from school. Kids will do that at the slightest provocation.No it wasn’t. Not participating in the walkout is seen as being against walkout, for whatever reason. The kids in that group were referred to as ‘gun nuts’ and as being uncaring about the kids that were killed.No, the hall they provided was not for those wanting to exercise their right to remain neutral, it was the only choice given for those not supporting the march.So you keep saying, but the point is there’s no excuse for offering only two choices and forcing the kids to align with one or the other.
It’s really very, very simple.
Please tell me what other possible choice there could be other than "join the walkout" or "do not join the walkout".
All they had to do was provide a teacher to supervise those who wished to exercise their right to remain neutral and not be forced in to aligning with either side.
They did that, they provide teachers to supervise those who wished to exercise their right to remain neutral. Those teachers were in a particular set of room that the student was supposed to go to if they did not wish to join the walkout. This student choose to ignore that rule and do his own thing. Thus he got punished.
Again, I ask you, are you forced to vote either Dem or Rep?
No, but I do have a particular place I have to go to cast my vote, I do not get to choose to do it from wherever I want. Should the state accomodate me and have supervised voting in any location I want them to?
What do you think they are demonstrating to these kids?
That everyone has to follow the rules, that this kid is not special.
If schools decide to hold political protests on school premises and in school time, then they should at least have the decency to cater to those who want to remain politically neutral. It really isn’t rocket science.
That is what they did. The set aside a designated space for those not wishing to join in the politically motivated walkout. What more should they have done?
If you only offer two choices, then they are perceived to be either for or against, naturally.
Many of the kids in the hall were there because they are pro second amendment and were against the protest.
The kid who was punished for not wanting to join them also said they were perceived to be unsympathetic to the kids that died, and he didn’t want to be seen in that way either.
Had the teachers wanted to be fair to all the kids, all they needed to do was provide a teacher to supervise the kids who wanted to remain neutral - the third choice. Again, it’s hardly rocket science.
The school viewed the "not going to the walkout" as the neutral choice, which it was.
I really don’t understand what you’re finding so difficult to understand here. You are familiar with YES/NO/DONT KNOW type surveys, yes?
If you provide only two ‘choices’ then you are polarising, pigeonholing and labelling the kids as for or against. Simple as. I don’t believe you don’t get this, so I’m not going to bother resting it again.