Monday, December 11, 2006

Four Year Old Molests Teacher's Aid!

This is another one of those news articles that makes you just shake your head and wonder what the heck is wrong with folks, and schools, and bureaucracy in general. From the Star Telegram:

(or; 4-year old traumatized by overreaction to simple hug)

WACO - School administrators gave a 4-year-old student an in-school suspension for inappropriately touching a teacher's aide after the pre-kindergartner hugged the woman.
Number one, what kind of school feels the need to suspend a pre-k student for anything? Any behavior that is unacceptable in a 4-year old should be discussed in privacy with that child's parents.

Number two, no hugs allowed?

A letter from La Vega school district administrators to the student's parents said that the boy was involved in "inappropriate physical behavior interpreted as sexual contact and/or sexual harassment" after he hugged the woman and he "rubbed his face in the chest of (the) female employee" on Nov. 10.

DaMarcus Blackwell, the father of the boy who attends La Vega Primary School, said he filed a complaint with the district. He said that his son doesn't understand why he was punished.

"When I got that letter, my world flipped," Blackwell said in a story in Sunday's editions of the Waco Tribune-Herald.
Now we have left the realm of being ridiculous, and entered the twilight zone.

I can not believe that educated adults would accuse a 4-year old of sexual contact or sexual harassment. I do realize that there are those "progressives" that want to teach our children about sexual behaviour and orientation in Kindergarten, but to believe that a 4-year old coped a feel with his face while hugging his teacher is ludicrous.

As for the accusation of sexual harassment, let us look up the definition of "sexual harassment" shall we?

"Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment when submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment."

Someone is going to have to explain to me how a 4-year old could possibly meet any of these requirements to be considered a sexual harasser.

After the schools initial reaction (and a filed complaint from the father), the accusations changed:
After Blackwell filed a complaint, a subsequent letter from the district said the offense had been changed to "inappropriate physical contact" and removed references of sexual contact or sexual harassment from the boy's file.
This child is still on "in school suspension". He is still being punished for hugging an adult who he felt close to due to spending a good part of his day with her. This young boy hugs a teacher, nuzzles in close as young children will do, and she freaks out (you have to know this was not a calm walk to the principles office). How is the family going to explain that it is still okay to hug people? How has this affected this child, and how will it affect his relationship with women?

There are several people who should be disciplined in this case, none of them are 4 years old.

What kind of woman could interpret a hug from a 4-year old as sexual? How screwed up is her head that she thinks of children this young in a sexual manner? What the heck is she doing in a class with our children? She should be terminated immediately and referred to some sort of counseling.

This woman was a teachers aid. Where was the teacher in this incident? I would assume that the teacher has more experience and could have worked this out with the aid, maybe calling the parents for a conference if she felt the need. The teacher should have control over the aid, and should have the last say on any discipline of the students.

The school administration totally lost it. The school board should take a serious look into this situation and determine if they want folks working in our schools that would accuse a 4-year old of sexual harassment, and then take appropriate action.


Anonymous said...

Where have all the flowers gone? And the posts?

Rosemary Welch said...

This is totally outrageous. Let me see if I have this right. It's okay for a woman teacher to sleep with students, because that's every teen's fantasy. It's okay to have premarital sex, as a matter of fact if you don't? You are ostricized! By the adults! It's okay to want to turn marriage into a joke. Have I gotten this correct so far?

What does a four year old know lest that which they were taught? (Aside from being so open, trusting and free?) I see. It must be me again...

Anonymous said...

Rosemary, of course it's ok to have premarital sex. What are you talking about? And since when is marriage only about virgin sex? Now that would be a joke.

John R said...

mudkitty, what rosemary is concerned about is that schools are teaching promiscuity. Sex is just a "moment" between two people, something that just feels good.

Is it not better to teach our children that sex is probably the most wonderful encounter you can share with one you have a deep emotional attachment to, that casual sex with many partners takes away from that experience?

The "here is a condom, go for it" plan is not quite working out they way it has been advertised. Single Mom's with 4 children fathered by 3 different men. STD's killing folks left, right and sideways. We have HPV killing our young women by causing ovarian cancer, we have hepatitis A thru Z, AIDS, and of course the old standbys that are now drug resistant.

Which child is most likely to be the victim of abuse; The one in a stable, married family, or the one with a single mom who has a different man sleeping over each month? Which child is more likely to become a violent criminal?

Yes, it is okay to be promiscuous, but is it wise to lead our children into that lifestyle?

Anonymous said...

Schools aren't teaching promiscuity. That's just hysteria and alarmism. Not to mention, it's false. And the definition of promisquity is open to interpretation anyway.

Having casual sex will not ruin you for your ultimate partner, or for any other reason. And anyway, it's up to the individual. Sex between two adults, is no one else's concern.

Std's have always been a fact of life, like other contagious diseases. Why place a stigma on it?

Ronald Reagan had children with two different women. As if that were anybody's business.

What about a stable single mom? You can list a dozen the old days before divorce, women were simply abandoned. Divorce actually protects women and their children. Your scenario about a woman who has a different man every month happens, sadly, but it's an aberation. In fact, you've probably never met a woman like that. I dare say you could name one.

As for leading children into that lifestyle...often times what is traditionally refered to as promiscuity is actually just a phase, and not a lifestyle. And children devlope sexually in different ways and different rates, and I can't see how that is any body's business either, except for the parents of each child.

Obviously it's not ok for adults to have sex with children. But schools aren't teaching children promiscuity.