Are schools hypocritical/biased with their rules?
666_Maggots~PassionForGlory BN-1
2012/08/04 21:04:57
|
|
|||||
|
27 votes
|
|
79% | |||
|
3 votes
|
|
9% | |||
|
4 votes
|
|
12% | |||
I was reading a few question when I was wondering around in the news and politics section and it sparked an idea from before. I've gotten in "trouble" (per say) for wearing an inverted cross necklace to school because it was "offensive" but I see people wear regular cross necklaces all the time at school but never get in any sort of trouble, wouldn't that be offensive, as well? Seems a little hypocritical, but anyhow, in general, do you think schools can be hypocritical/biased?
Seriously, they can't reprimand you for that unless you are in a religion based school. Get a stack of business cards from the ACLU and anytime someone in an authority position gives you grief, hand them a card. That will make them at least stop long enough to think twice about what they are saying. Long enough to get away...
By the way, I hate the ACLU.
The only really dumb rules we had weren't enforced by anyone but the vice-principle. iPods were technically not allowed by school policy, but nobody said anything in the halls and teachers created their own iPod rules for their classroom. Cell phones were allowed outside of class, then banned in the building, then finally banned on school property-- only the VP enforced the "on school property/in the building" rule. The worst, by far, was the last detail of the uniform code: no non-uniform wear is allowed to be worn on school property. I live in Canada and the school doesn't have uniform coats. I've never seen someone get in trouble about their coats despite them not being allowed, but the VP got on anyone who wore a non-uniform sweater in the building-- even during the winter when the halls are freezing and e...
The only really dumb rules we had weren't enforced by anyone but the vice-principle. iPods were technically not allowed by school policy, but nobody said anything in the halls and teachers created their own iPod rules for their classroom. Cell phones were allowed outside of class, then banned in the building, then finally banned on school property-- only the VP enforced the "on school property/in the building" rule. The worst, by far, was the last detail of the uniform code: no non-uniform wear is allowed to be worn on school property. I live in Canada and the school doesn't have uniform coats. I've never seen someone get in trouble about their coats despite them not being allowed, but the VP got on anyone who wore a non-uniform sweater in the building-- even during the winter when the halls are freezing and even in the spring and fall when they're using it as their "coat" because it's too warm for a real coat and too cold to not wear anything on our arms, and they're on their way to the doors. :S As for hypocritical... our whole school district has to follow a "healthy food" rule on what they can sell to us, but apparently the VP thinks this also applies to what we bring in the building. He's got on someone for bringing in their Tims coffee (NOTE: not a single teacher in the building does not bring Tims in the morning) because they shouldn't be bringing something unhealthy like that into the school (NOTE: the cafeteria sells coffee, which is sometimes under the guise of "hot chocolate" to get by the healthy food rules). :S :S
They are, always. Especially towards beliefs that are different or against the normal. They also are with athletes. My school took all the money the band earned for winning a competition and put it into football. If someone like a drama person and an 'athlete' got into a fight, the athlete would come out of it with nothing against him or her at all.
Basically, they are. For everything.
Only freedom is thought can really be what the person truly has.
Public school kids can pretty much get away with murder compared to what I had to endure, so its hard for me to feel too sorry for them when it comes to the rules they have.
Of course, American public schools also suck academically, but that is another matter entirely. Perhaps because they are more concerned with problems like this instead of being focused on education?
On the plus side of the equation, if your private school is anything like most of them out there, you are probably blessed with excellent teachers, a great curriculum, tons of extracurricular activities, and very bright classmates. You should consider yourself lucky that your parents love you enough to spend to the money to make sure you have the best education.
No make up, no coloured hair ties, dye your hair and die. No cellphones and ipods (we were subject to INSPECTIONS for them.) Wear the hot, longsleeved gala uniform to mass even if it kills you. We started everyday with a reflection and a prayer. People were DESPERATE because puberty and no boys around just don't mix. No socks that goes below the ankle. Skirt must be two inches below the knee. Sometimes (like on recollections, retreats, and the school fair) we went to school in civies...God help you if you wear shorts, skirts above the knee, or expose your shoulders. Hell you can be OUT of school and post a picture of yourself on facebook wearing short shorts and you can get chewed out by your teacher. And I don't mean extremely short shorts, Just the kind you normally wear when going out to the mall.
However, I did destroy the public school kids in ACT and SAT scores, and most all of my teachers were also college professors that pushed me academically. I became a scholar, and an expert in my studies. With no girls around, there was not much else to do with my time there.
It did suck at the time, but I am now studying for my doctorate degree at 24 years of age, and most of the kids from public school I knew in those days are working the drive thru at Taco Bell. I think I came out on top, but time will tell I suppose.
Although from what I know the Jesuits were the more liberral priesthoods that I've encountered. Rather they were more scientifically inclined over the others. But thats just from my experience really, especially since they were the ONLY group that didn't attack the reproductive health bill.
Since in almost every school in the history of ever, someone with a regular cross wouldn't get in trouble when someone with an inverted cross would, that's biased towards Christianity. Specifically, it goes against the first sentence of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Your issue on the other hand sounds like public relations.
Not saying what you did offended anyone, but since things like an upside down cross or the Buddhist version of the swastika are loaded with implications not under your own personal control (mistaken identity or not) and the school can get sued for inaction, I can see why they asked you to take it off. There is a lot to loose and little to gain.
The inverted cross has a similar history. It is actually the personal trademark of Saint Peter, the first Pope, and one of the most revered figures in Catholic lore. He was said to have requested to be crucified upside down because he didn't feel worthy of dying the same way as Jesus.
However, I presume that modern Satanists wear it as a symbol of defiance against Christianity. Exactly the message your school was trying to avoid, unless you explained otherwise to them.
Everyone is touchy about religion. The Muslims find it so offensive when people draw cartoons of Muhammad that they actually make physical threats. Sometimes they carry those threats out too.
Aspects of our society are still basically tribal and people are always sending messages to each other even when they would be better off not doing so.