Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Denise on January 12, 2007:

I happened to be laying on the sofa watching the case of the 4 year-old on the news when my own four year old son came in the room. He crawled up on the sofa with me, cuddled up with his back to my stomach, snuggled his head into my breast, giggled, and said "You got soft boobies, Mommie!"

At first I hugged him, laughed at his innocent compliment, and shifted him to a more appropriate place.

Then I got a chill when I realized just how much trouble an innocent comment like that could get him into if some twit at his school doesn't have the sense not to lean over when giving little kids hugs. Really, when an adult woman of even average height and modest bosom leans over to hug a kid, her breasts are going to be right at kindergartner level. Is a toddler supposed to be competent enough to say 'no, ma'am, I can't hug you like that?' In another case in Maryland, a kindergarten boy was expelled under anti-sexual harassment rules for pinching a girl's butt. I wonder if he had pinched the girl's arm, back, or left pinkie toe would he still be expelled?

It's scary to think that we seem to be falling back into a very Victorian mindset where children are just little adults with all of the comprehension and responsibility that goes with that status. Children of that age are innocent of sex and its implications unless they've been subjected to some form of abuse, but even then it's not the children's fault if they repeat something they saw.

If the child does something inappropriate (like my son snuggling a little too familiarly) it is the responsibility of the adult to correct the child in a manner that will teach them what they did wrong and how not to do it again! That's why we're the adults, and they are children! My son would be devastated to not be able to go back to school, but he would have no idea what he did wrong. To him and other children like him, for that matter to all human beings, physical contact is a natural, pleasant way to express friendship and emotional connectivity.

ZT advocates, keep your prudish, embarrassed, and embarrassing one-rule-fits-all attitudes away from my children! I don't choose the raise them in three foot square forcefields that keep them deaf, dumb, and blind, and I'm damn well going to teach them to think for themselves!

Posted by Cody on January 12, 2007:

Not sure about the laws in New York but I do know that in Washington state you need to show proof that you need an accomodation such as a service animal. From all the stories I've seen the parents didn't want to meet with the people they needed to at the school and show proof that their son needs the dog.

This story has nothing to do with Zero Tolerance policies though so I don't know why you even bring that up.

I also don't understand why you continue to use the word retarded when discussing special education students. The term is no longer in use in most professions (medical, education, legal) and is generally considered offensive. Also, you assume that John Cave has a mental disability because the article mentions the district's special education committee. In many districts the special education committee also deals with students with physical disabilities.

You need to slow down the vitriol and study up a bit on what you are writing about.

---

Likewise, sir. I refuse to bow to political correctness; "retarded" is now nasty so we switch to "special" -- until that becomes pejorative. "Retarded" is a clear word, people know what it means, and therefore I'll use it.

You are, however, totally mistaken that I "assumed" deaf kids are retarded. I said no such thing. Let's look at the text here: "I mean really: obvious discrimination against a retarded child (as in another story this week)?!" Yes, the parenthetical isn't in the issue, but the issue (hello!) has a story about a retarded kid being discriminated against. I assumed readers would ...yes... READ the stories and understand them before commenting on them. My mistake. -rc

Posted by Mark on January 13, 2007:

Re: the refusal to allow a service dog. I only saw an interview with the boy and his mother, and I sort of understand the school's position. Granted - IF the law says there are no exceptions, all service dogs must be allowed, then the school is wrong. However, that's a "ZT" policy, itself, isn't it? The school has apparently already made multiple accommodations to allow this deaf boy to learn in a public school environment. The dog does not appear to perform any useful function in that environment, apart from serving as a security blanket for the child. (I emphasize, this is the impression I got from hearing the mother and the boy, not the school officials.) The dog will obviously be a disruption in the classroom - distracting students who want to pet him, breaks required to take the dog outside, and so on. IF there's any possible exceptions to the NY law, I can understand the school officials wanting to bar the dog.

Posted by Robert on January 13, 2007:

"Granted - IF the law says there are no exceptions, all service dogs must be allowed, then the school is wrong. However, that's a "ZT" policy, itself, isn't it?"

No! The relevant laws usually have a 'safe out' within so that certain institutions and organizations may, if the need can be verified, refuse entry.

"The dog does not appear to perform any useful function in that environment"

I would have thought the idea of the student being able to move from class to class easily and efficiently without getting in the road of other students, etc, would be a very 'useful function'. A blind person feeling their way about must cause some distress to them and how many times has the student failed to get to the right place, something the dog would cure, easily and efficiently.

"The dog will obviously be a disruption in the classroom"

Only at the beginning, until they are used to it being there, it will then become part of the general background of the school.

"distracting students who want to pet him"

Anybody who has a Guide Dog will ask that you NOT pet them. The dog is there as a working dog, not a pet.

"breaks required to take the dog outside"

Guide Dogs are trained to go for long periods without needing to go 'outside'. This is evident when the blind go to the theatre, are on long vehicle rides, etc

"and so on."

Ditto.

Posted by Mark on January 13, 2007:

Response to Robert:

"No! The relevant laws usually have a 'safe out' within so that certain institutions and organizations may, if the need can be verified, refuse entry."

Then there's an exception that might apply to the school, right?

"A blind person feeling their way about must cause some distress to them and how many times has the student failed to get to the right place, something the dog would cure, easily and efficiently."

He isn't blind, he's deaf. If he were blind, it is doubtful the principal would have started all this - and I wouldn't be supporting him.

Disruption - "Only at the beginning, until they are used to it being there, it will then become part of the general background of the school."

Granted. How long is that beginning period? How many students will be disadvantaged during that time? Is that a price that MUST be paid?

"Anybody who has a Guide Dog will ask that you NOT pet them."

Also granted. Making it a distraction to the students trying to pet him (surreptitiously after they get told "no" a few times) AND to the owner who has to tell them to stop. And the teacher who would presumably have to help enforce that. Yes, that would also be a temporary problem - but again, for HOW LONG? And it would tend to repeat as new students join the class or the school.

"Guide Dogs are trained to go for long periods without needing to go 'outside'."

Okay, that was a weak one - I withdraw that objection. My overall argument stands, though. There appears to be no benefit to the dog's presence, versus definite (though limited) damage to the learning environment. The administrators may be wrong, but the question is certainly not a clear-cut "They must be idiots for objecting" issue.

---

Mark, you admitted in your first post you didn't know what the dog was trained to do. Here, "There appears to be no benefit to the dog's presence." You're arguing out of ignorance. The dog was trained for a full year. Surely it was trained to do something! Yet you deride it as a "security blanket". Call it a "security blanket" if you wish, but if I were the kid, and not able to hear (say) fire alarms, I'd be grateful for the presence of a dog trained to alert me and get me the hell out of there -- for just one example. -rc

Posted by Dave on January 13, 2007:

First off, I have to agree with Cody that this doesn't seem like a ZT issue. The school is not banning all service animals, just this one, which it deems unnecessary.

However, in one training session I took when I was training to be a supervisor, it was stressed that one shouldn't make medical diagnoses unless one has a medical degree. Unless this principal is an expert in the needs of the physically handicapped (your story quotes the principal – the boy "doesn't need the dog"), he (or the school board) should be getting expert guidance in this area.

I also agree with Robert’s comments about the treatment of service animals. As for the petting issue, this is a high school, it's not like the students are little kids.

Posted by Frank on January 13, 2007:

ZT is not going to end until we make the perpetrators take responsibilities for their actions.

Lawsuits are fine, but in addition to the schools and government agencies, we need to sue the individuals doing this in pro per and have them stripped of the 'qualified immunity' they are currently hiding behind.

ZT will die when it is made clear that the next idiot to show his ass in public is going to end up living, along with his family, in a refrigerator box behind a crack house.

ZT will die when the only college the children of these idiots can afford is clown college.

ZT will die when the idiots lose their liability insurance, become unemployable, and half their wages from making french fries at McDogfood are garnished to satisfy the remainder of the damage judgement.

Then, and only then, will we be able to put a stake through the heart of this vampire.

Posted by Dave, New Zealand on January 13, 2007:

From the posted examples and what's happening with bureaucrats here in New Zealand, it really appears that the old saying has become truth; the inmates are running the asylum.

Exposing the 'little Fuherers' is the first step in getting sanity back in our lives; thank your chosen deity for 'This is True' in taking this step on the interweb.

Posted by Linda on January 13, 2007:

Every time I read these stories about schools and zero tolerance I want to scream. I taught at a high school for 27 years in NJ and I KNOW when I hear these stories there that is ALWAYS more to the story. There is a missing element that explains why the school made the decision it did. Did they prove that the pellet gun belonged to the boy who "found it"? This scenario happens a lot when a student has drugs in their backpacks or on their person. They have always "found it" in the trash.

When they stole stuff off of my desk -- they "found" it in the hallway, etc. You get the picture. Why would a deaf child need a dog at school? Is it poorly trained and poops all over or is it a danger to other students?? Is the dog really a pet that he wants to bring to school for attention? You have no idea what nonsense schools have to put up with from students and parents who think the rules are not written for them but everyone else.

---

The pellet gun did not belong to the boy. The dog has a full year of training. You'd think there are excuses for such outrages, and maybe sometimes there is one. But I'll bet they're the exception, not the rule. Not that I don't agree with you that kids are very often hellions, mind you. -rc

Posted by Debbie on January 13, 2007:

I believe the laws in Australia surrounding Guide Dogs give the dogs the same right of entry to any public place as their handler. Irrespective of the personal opinions of the school principal in this scenario and/or his arguments regarding allergys and disruption, this is blatant discrimination and should be dealt with accordingly. Surely, if this child did not have a need for a guide dog, the relevant association would not provide him with one?

It's high time school principals (and their band of loyal followers) were knocked off their pedestals and returned to normality.

Should parents have a ZT for idiot principals and moronic teachers who are obviously on a path to destroying our children's innocence and removing their ability to show any affection? Perhaps we should raise our children as mindless robots?