Four- and Six-Year-Old “Sex Offenders”; Middle School Midol Dealers
(posted by Mona)
Zero tolerance reaches new heights of absurdity when kids who cannot possibly understand a sexual move (unless they are victims of sexual abuse) are being disciplined in school as “sex offenders,” and the school is calling in the cops — as with six-year-old Randy Castro who patted a fellow student on the behind. The officers in their report described the lad’s behavior as “Sexual Touching Against Student, Offensive”. And to my sheer astonishment, while reading his column addressing this matter I find that I agree with Mark Steyn in at least one area:
Sixteen months ago, a school official in Texas accused a 4-year-old of sexual harassment after the boy was observed pressing his face into the breasts of a teacher’s aide when he hugged her before boarding the school bus. Fortunately, the school took decisive action and suspended the sick freak.
By the way, is that the first recorded use in the history of the English language of the phrase “accused a 4-year-old of sexual harassment”? Well, it won’t be the last: In the state of Maryland last year, 16 kindergartners were suspended for sexual harassment, as were three preschoolers.
As Steyn notes, the “zero tolerance” derangement is not limited to tots and sex, but also includes students and Midol equivalents:
Back in 2003, Savana [Redding] was an eighth grader at Safford Middle School in Safford, Ariz., when the vice principal, Kerry Wilson, “acting on a tip,” discovered a fellow student to have a handful of ibuprofen tablets in her pocket. The other girl said she got them from Savana, who denied it. She had no tablets in her own pockets or in her backpack. Vice Principal Wilson, whose mind works in interesting ways, then decided that Savana might be hiding the ibuprofen in her cleavage or her crotch.
So, without contacting the girl’s parents, he ordered a school official to strip-search Savana. She was obliged to expose her breasts and “her pelvic area.” If Vice Principal Wilson were a 4-year-old preschooler who had been involved in a stunt like that, he’d now be a registered sex offender for life. But fortunately he’s a “school official” so if he decides to apply search techniques associated with international narcotics traffic he pretty much has a free hand to do so. After all, ibuprofen is serious stuff. As Reason magazine’s Jacob Sullum put it, “It’s a good thing the school took swift action, before anyone got unauthorized relief from menstrual cramps.”
The policies of these “school officials” are dignified by the name of “zero tolerance.” “Zero sanity” would be a more accurate description.
I hold no hope for Steyn on any issues touching and concerning foreign policy or national security. But on this sort of issue, he is right as rain.
April 14th, 2008 at 7:12 am
I heard about the little kid that patted another’s behind and had the cops called on him. Insane, and so sad that this little one has a record. Not that I’m an advocatge of the ‘boys will be boys’ attitude. But this is going unbelievably too far in the opposite direction, considering the age group we’re dealing with here.
April 14th, 2008 at 7:45 am
Paige: I can even understand a policy against letting middle-schooler give ibuprofen to another student, since the other kid could be allergic, or it is contraindicated by medications s/he is taking or any number of things. The school nurse should be dispensing such things with parental permission, if the parents have not sent it with that student him/herself.
But it ought not be treated as a “drug” offense and involve a freakin’ strip search to give another girl some!
April 14th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Good post, Mona.
April 14th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
School administrators are like bureaucrats everywhere. They don’t like muss or fuss or bad publicity, and when they can insure themselves against it by inconveniencing someone else, they’ll jump at the chance. Of course, being bureaucrats they’re also stupid, and thus don’t realize that their policies aimed at avoiding embarrassment will themselves cause even more embarrassment because of their humorous quality as “stupid administrator tricks.”
The same thing is true of HR types in the workplace who fire bloggers for the potential embarrassment, when an employee after a horrible day at work mentions to his 300 readers that “it sucks to work at Employer X.” And then the story gets picked up by the wire services and major newspapers of record, and 30 million people read instead: “Blogger gets fired for revealing how bad it sucks to work at Employer X.” That’s the typical pattern of a Doocing story, and–like Wile E. Coyote–those HR geniuses never see it blowing up in their faces until it’s too late.
April 14th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Well, re: sexual harassment, there might be complications with the situation where 4 year old put his face in a woman’s breasts.
A workplace is obligated to prevent sexual harassment. While it’s not an act of sexual harassment for a kid to put (his, in this case) face in a woman’s breasts, it is an obligation of the school to protect the breasts of female employees (that hostile work environment thing).
However, suspending the kid seems pointless unless the child has done this multiple times in the past. The school should just put a program in place over how to deal with inappropriate touch by young kids. That fulfills the schools responsibility to protect breasts.
The problem is, if an adult male had done this, punishing the offender would have been mandatory (well… not mandatory, but not doing so would have been a clear case of allowing harassment to occur). I haven’t seen the details on this case, but I’d bet that this is why they suspended the kid.
April 14th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
A workplace is obligated to prevent sexual harassment. While it’s not an act of sexual harassment for a kid to put (his, in this case) face in a woman’s breasts,
Not only is it not harassment, it is somewhat normal. My grandsons hugged me with their little faces there at that age. Worse, I slept with them when they spent the nite with me until they were about five. Anyone who wants to make a big deal out that — and I’m not saying you would or are — has issues.
August 29th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Sixteen kindergardners!! Who are the officials running these schools! And what were the kindergardners doing? Sexing down the teachers? It is our job as parents, teachers and adults to TEACH children right and wrong behavior, so that they will know how to function and thrive appropriately in public if it had been an adult male who had smooshed his face in the womans breasts he would have been dealt accordingly….. BECAUSE HE’S AN ADULT!! A six year old is a child! How can we pin a child with sexual harrassment or as a sex offender if they don’t know what that is? These children are being punished and instead of teaching that, whats done at home cannot necessarily be done in public, or that you cannot repeat what you see someone else do (which, parents and adults should be mindful of what they do around their children, what they let their children watch, and who they let come around their children) they are being stuck with the title of a sex offender for years and decades of their life. Come on people… this is ridiculous, it’s gone WAY too far