Joe Weedon wants permission to send his daughter to Walls

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its really weird how it seems to be the parents choice. Obviously elementary and maybe more child input for middle, but we definitely gave our child final say for high school.

It never even occurred to me that a kid would have more of a say than the parent when it comes to HS, unless there is a very strong specific interest. It's interesting to hear that others have the opposite viewpoint. I keep coming back to, these are just kids - why are we saddling them with this responsibility?

Because it's their life. This is my perspective based on my own experience. My parents moved to what was seen as "the best" school district in a wealthy part of town. Going to school with all the self absorbed rich kids was no picnic. I chose a magnet for high school. Best choice I ever made. I'm grateful my parents backed me up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m one of the PPs^^ and I’ve never felt insecure about the decisions I made for my kids for school. What I’ve said - and others have too - is that Joe was so smug, sure of his viewpoint, clear-eyed, and judgmental about our decision-making. I think I used the word “disdain” about his negativity in those circumstances. What goes around, come around. Now he’s not so clear-eyed or sure when it’s his own kid. The article is his way of pretend, self-flagellation. They had already decided Malia is going to Walls.

Evidence to the contrary. What you are writing comes off as very personal. Why on earth do you care? Why spend a minute carrying that much emotion or feeling his disdain? If you were my kid I'd be telling you that you are responsible for giving others power over you. Also, your certainty regarding what his ultimate decision was or is makes you no different or better than the smugness disdain or certainly that you so disliked coming from him.

Were you not so emotionally invested in this Wheedon character you might be able to see that.

I don't know Wheedon and my kid goes to a strong IB school, so I have no direct or indirect go in this fight. But I really don't get your logic that being annoyed at hypocrisy shows insecurity about choices others have made. That doesn't make sense to me.

I can very easily see why someone would be annoyed by someone who sanctimoniously criticized acted like anyone who went charter was doing something wrong and now, when faced with the same dilemma others had before, he realizes the choice isn't so easy and he does it in a very public forum.

I am annoyed at some friends who are very outspoken about immigrant rights and $15/hr living wage who turn around and higher a nanny here illegal under the table at $10/hr. My annoyance at their hypocrisy doesn't mean that I am insecure about my decision to hire a legal nanny for $20/hr. One simply doesn't follow from the other.

People aren’t illegal, they are undocumented.

I agree with the PP's post you are responding to. And if you read carefully, they didn't call anyone illegal. The adjective referred to the work status, not the person.

She called a person “legal”. It’s a slur.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its really weird how it seems to be the parents choice. Obviously elementary and maybe more child input for middle, but we definitely gave our child final say for high school.

It never even occurred to me that a kid would have more of a say than the parent when it comes to HS, unless there is a very strong specific interest. It's interesting to hear that others have the opposite viewpoint. I keep coming back to, these are just kids - why are we saddling them with this responsibility?

Because it's their life. This is my perspective based on my own experience. My parents moved to what was seen as "the best" school district in a wealthy part of town. Going to school with all the self absorbed rich kids was no picnic. I chose a magnet for high school. Best choice I ever made. I'm grateful my parents backed me up.

I think you let a rising high school student choose from within a set of acceptable choices, assuming there are choices (you don’t live in a community with just one high school). They need to begin to take responsibility for their education and putting them someplace against their will can almost certainly backfire.

In the Weedons’ case, they say they believe she could get a fine education at either school. So let the kid decide and leave the Washington Post out of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m one of the PPs^^ and I’ve never felt insecure about the decisions I made for my kids for school. What I’ve said - and others have too - is that Joe was so smug, sure of his viewpoint, clear-eyed, and judgmental about our decision-making. I think I used the word “disdain” about his negativity in those circumstances. What goes around, come around. Now he’s not so clear-eyed or sure when it’s his own kid. The article is his way of pretend, self-flagellation. They had already decided Malia is going to Walls.

Evidence to the contrary. What you are writing comes off as very personal. Why on earth do you care? Why spend a minute carrying that much emotion or feeling his disdain? If you were my kid I'd be telling you that you are responsible for giving others power over you. Also, your certainty regarding what his ultimate decision was or is makes you no different or better than the smugness disdain or certainly that you so disliked coming from him.

Were you not so emotionally invested in this Wheedon character you might be able to see that.

I don't know Wheedon and my kid goes to a strong IB school, so I have no direct or indirect go in this fight. But I really don't get your logic that being annoyed at hypocrisy shows insecurity about choices others have made. That doesn't make sense to me.

I can very easily see why someone would be annoyed by someone who sanctimoniously criticized acted like anyone who went charter was doing something wrong and now, when faced with the same dilemma others had before, he realizes the choice isn't so easy and he does it in a very public forum.

I am annoyed at some friends who are very outspoken about immigrant rights and $15/hr living wage who turn around and higher a nanny here illegal under the table at $10/hr. My annoyance at their hypocrisy doesn't mean that I am insecure about my decision to hire a legal nanny for $20/hr. One simply doesn't follow from the other.

People aren’t illegal, they are undocumented.

I agree with the PP's post you are responding to. And if you read carefully, they didn't call anyone illegal. The adjective referred to the work status, not the person.

Right, it says "here illegall[y]." That clearly refers to their status in the country, not their status as a human being.

I just got a visa for a foreign trip. If I either entered without a visa or overstayed my visa, I would be "there illegally" and it is no different than someone here in the US.

If you are going to try to be the word police, please have the decency to read the post you are trying to correct.

It’s not being “word police” it’s the fact that you’re too ignorant to understand that it is a slur. Do I also have to explain why the n word is wrong and why we don’t refer to asian Americans as Orientals?

Because those are even remotely equivalent. Describing someone's immigration status in the context of legal or illegal simply is not a slur, and you calling now ignorant for not agreeing with you doesn't mean you are right. And screaming that everyone must use your precise word choice, which is far from universally accepted, or be labeled ignorant is a paradigmatic example of the word police.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s one thing to criticize Mr. Weedon if his child was going to elementary or even middle school and he lotteries his child outside of his IB school. But the article makes it sound like this is what his rising high schooler wants. He should take his daughter’s opinion into consideration when making a choice about schools. That’s what a good parent would do even if it goes against your policy preferences.

The article clearly indicated that his daughter would prefer Eastern:

"Malia — a confident, self-described nerd — said she would rather go to Eastern and commute by foot each day. "

OMG. Good catch; I forgot that in all the posts. But didn’t she also say she worried about the education?

Yes. It wasn’t a quote but the article said she wanted a row challenging academic experience than she had at EH.

So, if the daughter wants to go to a school outside of their boundary, how does that make Weedon a hypocrite? Are posters on here suggesting that he should force his daughter, a high school student, to go to Eastern to “keep it real”? Because that’s stupid. And that quote from Malia just shows that’s she torn about being separated from her community school and friends but the rest of the article suggests she wanted to go to a more challenging school.

What you’re missing is that Weedon did this, over and over again to others.

I don't know Joe Weedon but he sounds just like someone we have WOTP - Rachel Laser. She lectured us on white privilege, white atonement, white fragility, "equity", and the supposed evils of tracking (i.e., honors classes), and then shoved the ludicrous "Honors for All" down Wilson High School's throat and wrapped it "equity" to squash discussion. To top it off, she sends her child to the $40k/year private Georgetown Day School (GDS) instead of Wilson which is akin to a super strong version of tracking. You can't make this shit up. These people have no shame.

Wow, that is pretty bad. Why is she even involved in Wilson? Does she have other kids there?


Why is Rachel Laser involved at Wilson? That is a very good question. She is performing a grand experiment using Wilson students as chess pieces while sending her own kids to GDS. Extremely hypocritical and sanctimonious person.

I’m glad Joe Weedon finally took off his rose colored glasses. I wish I could send my kids to Eastern but there is no way it is happening under current principal and the current DCPS infrastructure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s one thing to criticize Mr. Weedon if his child was going to elementary or even middle school and he lotteries his child outside of his IB school. But the article makes it sound like this is what his rising high schooler wants. He should take his daughter’s opinion into consideration when making a choice about schools. That’s what a good parent would do even if it goes against your policy preferences.

The article clearly indicated that his daughter would prefer Eastern:

"Malia — a confident, self-described nerd — said she would rather go to Eastern and commute by foot each day. "

OMG. Good catch; I forgot that in all the posts. But didn’t she also say she worried about the education?

Yes. It wasn’t a quote but the article said she wanted a row challenging academic experience than she had at EH.

So, if the daughter wants to go to a school outside of their boundary, how does that make Weedon a hypocrite? Are posters on here suggesting that he should force his daughter, a high school student, to go to Eastern to “keep it real”? Because that’s stupid. And that quote from Malia just shows that’s she torn about being separated from her community school and friends but the rest of the article suggests she wanted to go to a more challenging school.

What you’re missing is that Weedon did this, over and over again to others.

I don't know Joe Weedon but he sounds just like someone we have WOTP - Rachel Laser. She lectured us on white privilege, white atonement, white fragility, "equity", and the supposed evils of tracking (i.e., honors classes), and then shoved the ludicrous "Honors for All" down Wilson High School's throat and wrapped it "equity" to squash discussion. To top it off, she sends her child to the $40k/year private Georgetown Day School (GDS) instead of Wilson which is akin to a super strong version of tracking. You can't make this shit up. These people have no shame.

Wow, that is pretty bad. Why is she even involved in Wilson? Does she have other kids there?


Why is Rachel Laser involved at Wilson? That is a very good question. She is performing a grand experiment using Wilson students as chess pieces while sending her own kids to GDS. Extremely hypocritical and sanctimonious person.

I’m glad Joe Weedon finally took off his rose colored glasses. I wish I could send my kids to Eastern but there is no way it is happening under current principal and the current DCPS infrastructure.

Joe Weedon seems to be doing the same thing as the Rachel Laser character. He was on Eastern’s PTA when he didn’t have kids there and now isn’t even sending his kids there. What is up with people and this whole “the uneducated masses NEED me thing”? How arrogant to think that hey know more than parents who actually have kids there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m one of the PPs^^ and I’ve never felt insecure about the decisions I made for my kids for school. What I’ve said - and others have too - is that Joe was so smug, sure of his viewpoint, clear-eyed, and judgmental about our decision-making. I think I used the word “disdain” about his negativity in those circumstances. What goes around, come around. Now he’s not so clear-eyed or sure when it’s his own kid. The article is his way of pretend, self-flagellation. They had already decided Malia is going to Walls.

Evidence to the contrary. What you are writing comes off as very personal. Why on earth do you care? Why spend a minute carrying that much emotion or feeling his disdain? If you were my kid I'd be telling you that you are responsible for giving others power over you. Also, your certainty regarding what his ultimate decision was or is makes you no different or better than the smugness disdain or certainly that you so disliked coming from him.

Were you not so emotionally invested in this Wheedon character you might be able to see that.

I don't know Wheedon and my kid goes to a strong IB school, so I have no direct or indirect go in this fight. But I really don't get your logic that being annoyed at hypocrisy shows insecurity about choices others have made. That doesn't make sense to me.

I can very easily see why someone would be annoyed by someone who sanctimoniously criticized acted like anyone who went charter was doing something wrong and now, when faced with the same dilemma others had before, he realizes the choice isn't so easy and he does it in a very public forum.

I am annoyed at some friends who are very outspoken about immigrant rights and $15/hr living wage who turn around and higher a nanny here illegal under the table at $10/hr. My annoyance at their hypocrisy doesn't mean that I am insecure about my decision to hire a legal nanny for $20/hr. One simply doesn't follow from the other.

People aren’t illegal, they are undocumented.

I agree with the PP's post you are responding to. And if you read carefully, they didn't call anyone illegal. The adjective referred to the work status, not the person.

Right, it says "here illegall[y]." That clearly refers to their status in the country, not their status as a human being.

I just got a visa for a foreign trip. If I either entered without a visa or overstayed my visa, I would be "there illegally" and it is no different than someone here in the US.

If you are going to try to be the word police, please have the decency to read the post you are trying to correct.

It’s not being “word police” it’s the fact that you’re too ignorant to understand that it is a slur. Do I also have to explain why the n word is wrong and why we don’t refer to asian Americans as Orientals?

Because those are even remotely equivalent. Describing someone's immigration status in the context of legal or illegal simply is not a slur, and you calling now ignorant for not agreeing with you doesn't mean you are right. And screaming that everyone must use your precise word choice, which is far from universally accepted, or be labeled ignorant is a paradigmatic example of the word police.

They are the same. I’m sorry you’re an ignorant person that doesn’t seem to understand the depersonalization of why it’s xenophonic and racist to call a person ILLEGAL, but hopefully your children are less disgusting. White immigrants are not called this slur- Latinos are. It’s repellent and so are you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its really weird how it seems to be the parents choice. Obviously elementary and maybe more child input for middle, but we definitely gave our child final say for high school.

It never even occurred to me that a kid would have more of a say than the parent when it comes to HS, unless there is a very strong specific interest. It's interesting to hear that others have the opposite viewpoint. I keep coming back to, these are just kids - why are we saddling them with this responsibility?

Because it's their life. This is my perspective based on my own experience. My parents moved to what was seen as "the best" school district in a wealthy part of town. Going to school with all the self absorbed rich kids was no picnic. I chose a magnet for high school. Best choice I ever made. I'm grateful my parents backed me up.

I think you let a rising high school student choose from within a set of acceptable choices, assuming there are choices (you don’t live in a community with just one high school). They need to begin to take responsibility for their education and putting them someplace against their will can almost certainly backfire.

In the Weedons’ case, they say they believe she could get a fine education at either school. So let the kid decide and leave the Washington Post out of it.

This is how we decided HS with our child, including looking at Walls and some independents. Visits and conversations, but our child had final say. I guess I figure a family like the Weedens who are probably super liberal Cap hill people would give their child a lot of ownership. She sounds sensible. I think the only issue she faces is how much her family embarrassingly put their fingers on the scales due to previous words and actions. I feel for her and hope she chooses what she feels is best for her. So what did "they" decide?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m one of the PPs^^ and I’ve never felt insecure about the decisions I made for my kids for school. What I’ve said - and others have too - is that Joe was so smug, sure of his viewpoint, clear-eyed, and judgmental about our decision-making. I think I used the word “disdain” about his negativity in those circumstances. What goes around, come around. Now he’s not so clear-eyed or sure when it’s his own kid. The article is his way of pretend, self-flagellation. They had already decided Malia is going to Walls.

Evidence to the contrary. What you are writing comes off as very personal. Why on earth do you care? Why spend a minute carrying that much emotion or feeling his disdain? If you were my kid I'd be telling you that you are responsible for giving others power over you. Also, your certainty regarding what his ultimate decision was or is makes you no different or better than the smugness disdain or certainly that you so disliked coming from him.

Were you not so emotionally invested in this Wheedon character you might be able to see that.

I don't know Wheedon and my kid goes to a strong IB school, so I have no direct or indirect go in this fight. But I really don't get your logic that being annoyed at hypocrisy shows insecurity about choices others have made. That doesn't make sense to me.

I can very easily see why someone would be annoyed by someone who sanctimoniously criticized acted like anyone who went charter was doing something wrong and now, when faced with the same dilemma others had before, he realizes the choice isn't so easy and he does it in a very public forum.

I am annoyed at some friends who are very outspoken about immigrant rights and $15/hr living wage who turn around and higher a nanny here illegal under the table at $10/hr. My annoyance at their hypocrisy doesn't mean that I am insecure about my decision to hire a legal nanny for $20/hr. One simply doesn't follow from the other.

People aren’t illegal, they are undocumented.

I agree with the PP's post you are responding to. And if you read carefully, they didn't call anyone illegal. The adjective referred to the work status, not the person.

Right, it says "here illegall[y]." That clearly refers to their status in the country, not their status as a human being.

I just got a visa for a foreign trip. If I either entered without a visa or overstayed my visa, I would be "there illegally" and it is no different than someone here in the US.

If you are going to try to be the word police, please have the decency to read the post you are trying to correct.

It’s not being “word police” it’s the fact that you’re too ignorant to understand that it is a slur. Do I also have to explain why the n word is wrong and why we don’t refer to asian Americans as Orientals?

Because those are even remotely equivalent. Describing someone's immigration status in the context of legal or illegal simply is not a slur, and you calling now ignorant for not agreeing with you doesn't mean you are right. And screaming that everyone must use your precise word choice, which is far from universally accepted, or be labeled ignorant is a paradigmatic example of the word police.

They are the same. I’m sorry you’re an ignorant person that doesn’t seem to understand the depersonalization of why it’s xenophonic and racist to call a person ILLEGAL, but hopefully your children are less disgusting. White immigrants are not called this slur- Latinos are. It’s repellent and so are you.

dp: I get why usage of ‘illegal’ is a sensitive topic, but, PP, you are off-base here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m one of the PPs^^ and I’ve never felt insecure about the decisions I made for my kids for school. What I’ve said - and others have too - is that Joe was so smug, sure of his viewpoint, clear-eyed, and judgmental about our decision-making. I think I used the word “disdain” about his negativity in those circumstances. What goes around, come around. Now he’s not so clear-eyed or sure when it’s his own kid. The article is his way of pretend, self-flagellation. They had already decided Malia is going to Walls.

Evidence to the contrary. What you are writing comes off as very personal. Why on earth do you care? Why spend a minute carrying that much emotion or feeling his disdain? If you were my kid I'd be telling you that you are responsible for giving others power over you. Also, your certainty regarding what his ultimate decision was or is makes you no different or better than the smugness disdain or certainly that you so disliked coming from him.

Were you not so emotionally invested in this Wheedon character you might be able to see that.

I don't know Wheedon and my kid goes to a strong IB school, so I have no direct or indirect go in this fight. But I really don't get your logic that being annoyed at hypocrisy shows insecurity about choices others have made. That doesn't make sense to me.

I can very easily see why someone would be annoyed by someone who sanctimoniously criticized acted like anyone who went charter was doing something wrong and now, when faced with the same dilemma others had before, he realizes the choice isn't so easy and he does it in a very public forum.

I am annoyed at some friends who are very outspoken about immigrant rights and $15/hr living wage who turn around and higher a nanny here illegal under the table at $10/hr. My annoyance at their hypocrisy doesn't mean that I am insecure about my decision to hire a legal nanny for $20/hr. One simply doesn't follow from the other.

People aren’t illegal, they are undocumented.

I agree with the PP's post you are responding to. And if you read carefully, they didn't call anyone illegal. The adjective referred to the work status, not the person.

Right, it says "here illegall[y]." That clearly refers to their status in the country, not their status as a human being.

I just got a visa for a foreign trip. If I either entered without a visa or overstayed my visa, I would be "there illegally" and it is no different than someone here in the US.

If you are going to try to be the word police, please have the decency to read the post you are trying to correct.

It’s not being “word police” it’s the fact that you’re too ignorant to understand that it is a slur. Do I also have to explain why the n word is wrong and why we don’t refer to asian Americans as Orientals?

Because those are even remotely equivalent. Describing someone's immigration status in the context of legal or illegal simply is not a slur, and you calling now ignorant for not agreeing with you doesn't mean you are right. And screaming that everyone must use your precise word choice, which is far from universally accepted, or be labeled ignorant is a paradigmatic example of the word police.

They are the same. I’m sorry you’re an ignorant person that doesn’t seem to understand the depersonalization of why it’s xenophonic and racist to call a person ILLEGAL, but hopefully your children are less disgusting. White immigrants are not called this slur- Latinos are. It’s repellent and so are you.

I hope your children are able to think critically rather than to simply spout trite slogans without regard to facts. No one is calling a person illegal. People are describing a person's immigration status as illegal. An illegal immigrant/alien does not lose his personhood. In fact, he can cure his illegal immigration status by returning home OR gaining legal status here. If illegal referred to something that went to someone's innate personhood, that status could not so easily be changed.

And you are wrong that it only applies to Latinos. Someone in the country illegal from Canada, Western Europe, or Asia or Africa for that matter, is every bit as much an illegal immigrant/alien as someone from Central America. As I said before, I would be an illegal immigrant if I entered a country illegally or overstayed my visa.

The fact that the majority, or maybe plurality, of illegal immigrants today are Latino does not in any way mean that it only applies to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m one of the PPs^^ and I’ve never felt insecure about the decisions I made for my kids for school. What I’ve said - and others have too - is that Joe was so smug, sure of his viewpoint, clear-eyed, and judgmental about our decision-making. I think I used the word “disdain” about his negativity in those circumstances. What goes around, come around. Now he’s not so clear-eyed or sure when it’s his own kid. The article is his way of pretend, self-flagellation. They had already decided Malia is going to Walls.

Evidence to the contrary. What you are writing comes off as very personal. Why on earth do you care? Why spend a minute carrying that much emotion or feeling his disdain? If you were my kid I'd be telling you that you are responsible for giving others power over you. Also, your certainty regarding what his ultimate decision was or is makes you no different or better than the smugness disdain or certainly that you so disliked coming from him.

Were you not so emotionally invested in this Wheedon character you might be able to see that.

I don't know Wheedon and my kid goes to a strong IB school, so I have no direct or indirect go in this fight. But I really don't get your logic that being annoyed at hypocrisy shows insecurity about choices others have made. That doesn't make sense to me.

I can very easily see why someone would be annoyed by someone who sanctimoniously criticized acted like anyone who went charter was doing something wrong and now, when faced with the same dilemma others had before, he realizes the choice isn't so easy and he does it in a very public forum.

I am annoyed at some friends who are very outspoken about immigrant rights and $15/hr living wage who turn around and higher a nanny here illegal under the table at $10/hr. My annoyance at their hypocrisy doesn't mean that I am insecure about my decision to hire a legal nanny for $20/hr. One simply doesn't follow from the other.

People aren’t illegal, they are undocumented.

I agree with the PP's post you are responding to. And if you read carefully, they didn't call anyone illegal. The adjective referred to the work status, not the person.

Right, it says "here illegall[y]." That clearly refers to their status in the country, not their status as a human being.

I just got a visa for a foreign trip. If I either entered without a visa or overstayed my visa, I would be "there illegally" and it is no different than someone here in the US.

If you are going to try to be the word police, please have the decency to read the post you are trying to correct.

It’s not being “word police” it’s the fact that you’re too ignorant to understand that it is a slur. Do I also have to explain why the n word is wrong and why we don’t refer to asian Americans as Orientals?

Because those are even remotely equivalent. Describing someone's immigration status in the context of legal or illegal simply is not a slur, and you calling now ignorant for not agreeing with you doesn't mean you are right. And screaming that everyone must use your precise word choice, which is far from universally accepted, or be labeled ignorant is a paradigmatic example of the word police.

They are the same. I’m sorry you’re an ignorant person that doesn’t seem to understand the depersonalization of why it’s xenophonic and racist to call a person ILLEGAL, but hopefully your children are less disgusting. White immigrants are not called this slur- Latinos are. It’s repellent and so are you.

I hope your children are able to think critically rather than to simply spout trite slogans without regard to facts. No one is calling a person illegal. People are describing a person's immigration status as illegal. An illegal immigrant/alien does not lose his personhood. In fact, he can cure his illegal immigration status by returning home OR gaining legal status here. If illegal referred to something that went to someone's innate personhood, that status could not so easily be changed.

And you are wrong that it only applies to Latinos. Someone in the country illegal from Canada, Western Europe, or Asia or Africa for that matter, is every bit as much an illegal immigrant/alien as someone from Central America. As I said before, I would be an illegal immigrant if I entered a country illegally or overstayed my visa.

The fact that the majority, or maybe plurality, of illegal immigrants today are Latino does not in any way mean that it only applies to them.

NP, this. PP was clearly using illegal/legal as an adjective and not a noun. You're taking this too far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m one of the PPs^^ and I’ve never felt insecure about the decisions I made for my kids for school. What I’ve said - and others have too - is that Joe was so smug, sure of his viewpoint, clear-eyed, and judgmental about our decision-making. I think I used the word “disdain” about his negativity in those circumstances. What goes around, come around. Now he’s not so clear-eyed or sure when it’s his own kid. The article is his way of pretend, self-flagellation. They had already decided Malia is going to Walls.

Evidence to the contrary. What you are writing comes off as very personal. Why on earth do you care? Why spend a minute carrying that much emotion or feeling his disdain? If you were my kid I'd be telling you that you are responsible for giving others power over you. Also, your certainty regarding what his ultimate decision was or is makes you no different or better than the smugness disdain or certainly that you so disliked coming from him.

Were you not so emotionally invested in this Wheedon character you might be able to see that.

I don't know Wheedon and my kid goes to a strong IB school, so I have no direct or indirect go in this fight. But I really don't get your logic that being annoyed at hypocrisy shows insecurity about choices others have made. That doesn't make sense to me.

I can very easily see why someone would be annoyed by someone who sanctimoniously criticized acted like anyone who went charter was doing something wrong and now, when faced with the same dilemma others had before, he realizes the choice isn't so easy and he does it in a very public forum.

I am annoyed at some friends who are very outspoken about immigrant rights and $15/hr living wage who turn around and higher a nanny here illegal under the table at $10/hr. My annoyance at their hypocrisy doesn't mean that I am insecure about my decision to hire a legal nanny for $20/hr. One simply doesn't follow from the other.

People aren’t illegal, they are undocumented.

I agree with the PP's post you are responding to. And if you read carefully, they didn't call anyone illegal. The adjective referred to the work status, not the person.

Right, it says "here illegall[y]." That clearly refers to their status in the country, not their status as a human being.

I just got a visa for a foreign trip. If I either entered without a visa or overstayed my visa, I would be "there illegally" and it is no different than someone here in the US.

If you are going to try to be the word police, please have the decency to read the post you are trying to correct.

It’s not being “word police” it’s the fact that you’re too ignorant to understand that it is a slur. Do I also have to explain why the n word is wrong and why we don’t refer to asian Americans as Orientals?

Because those are even remotely equivalent. Describing someone's immigration status in the context of legal or illegal simply is not a slur, and you calling now ignorant for not agreeing with you doesn't mean you are right. And screaming that everyone must use your precise word choice, which is far from universally accepted, or be labeled ignorant is a paradigmatic example of the word police.

They are the same. I’m sorry you’re an ignorant person that doesn’t seem to understand the depersonalization of why it’s xenophonic and racist to call a person ILLEGAL, but hopefully your children are less disgusting. White immigrants are not called this slur- Latinos are. It’s repellent and so are you.

I hope your children are able to think critically rather than to simply spout trite slogans without regard to facts. No one is calling a person illegal. People are describing a person's immigration status as illegal. An illegal immigrant/alien does not lose his personhood. In fact, he can cure his illegal immigration status by returning home OR gaining legal status here. If illegal referred to something that went to someone's innate personhood, that status could not so easily be changed.

And you are wrong that it only applies to Latinos. Someone in the country illegal from Canada, Western Europe, or Asia or Africa for that matter, is every bit as much an illegal immigrant/alien as someone from Central America. As I said before, I would be an illegal immigrant if I entered a country illegally or overstayed my visa.

The fact that the majority, or maybe plurality, of illegal immigrants today are Latino does not in any way mean that it only applies to them.

NP, this. PP was clearly using illegal/legal as an adjective and not a noun. You're taking this too far.

NP: but actually the correct term is undocumented immigrant, not illegal immigrant. Definitely better than using illegal as a noun but still not ideal. Just FYI. I don’t think it’s worth a huge fight on an unrelated thread. But illegal is a loaded and also slippery term in this context so better to stick to the more neutral wording. FWIW in the original post the person had meant legal to work which is actually totally different; one can be very much legally in the country but not have work permission.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m one of the PPs^^ and I’ve never felt insecure about the decisions I made for my kids for school. What I’ve said - and others have too - is that Joe was so smug, sure of his viewpoint, clear-eyed, and judgmental about our decision-making. I think I used the word “disdain” about his negativity in those circumstances. What goes around, come around. Now he’s not so clear-eyed or sure when it’s his own kid. The article is his way of pretend, self-flagellation. They had already decided Malia is going to Walls.

Evidence to the contrary. What you are writing comes off as very personal. Why on earth do you care? Why spend a minute carrying that much emotion or feeling his disdain? If you were my kid I'd be telling you that you are responsible for giving others power over you. Also, your certainty regarding what his ultimate decision was or is makes you no different or better than the smugness disdain or certainly that you so disliked coming from him.

Were you not so emotionally invested in this Wheedon character you might be able to see that.

I don't know Wheedon and my kid goes to a strong IB school, so I have no direct or indirect go in this fight. But I really don't get your logic that being annoyed at hypocrisy shows insecurity about choices others have made. That doesn't make sense to me.

I can very easily see why someone would be annoyed by someone who sanctimoniously criticized acted like anyone who went charter was doing something wrong and now, when faced with the same dilemma others had before, he realizes the choice isn't so easy and he does it in a very public forum.

I am annoyed at some friends who are very outspoken about immigrant rights and $15/hr living wage who turn around and higher a nanny here illegal under the table at $10/hr. My annoyance at their hypocrisy doesn't mean that I am insecure about my decision to hire a legal nanny for $20/hr. One simply doesn't follow from the other.

People aren’t illegal, they are undocumented.

I agree with the PP's post you are responding to. And if you read carefully, they didn't call anyone illegal. The adjective referred to the work status, not the person.

Right, it says "here illegall[y]." That clearly refers to their status in the country, not their status as a human being.

I just got a visa for a foreign trip. If I either entered without a visa or overstayed my visa, I would be "there illegally" and it is no different than someone here in the US.

If you are going to try to be the word police, please have the decency to read the post you are trying to correct.

It’s not being “word police” it’s the fact that you’re too ignorant to understand that it is a slur. Do I also have to explain why the n word is wrong and why we don’t refer to asian Americans as Orientals?

Because those are even remotely equivalent. Describing someone's immigration status in the context of legal or illegal simply is not a slur, and you calling now ignorant for not agreeing with you doesn't mean you are right. And screaming that everyone must use your precise word choice, which is far from universally accepted, or be labeled ignorant is a paradigmatic example of the word police.

They are the same. I’m sorry you’re an ignorant person that doesn’t seem to understand the depersonalization of why it’s xenophonic and racist to call a person ILLEGAL, but hopefully your children are less disgusting. White immigrants are not called this slur- Latinos are. It’s repellent and so are you.

I hope your children are able to think critically rather than to simply spout trite slogans without regard to facts. No one is calling a person illegal. People are describing a person's immigration status as illegal. An illegal immigrant/alien does not lose his personhood. In fact, he can cure his illegal immigration status by returning home OR gaining legal status here. If illegal referred to something that went to someone's innate personhood, that status could not so easily be changed.

And you are wrong that it only applies to Latinos. Someone in the country illegal from Canada, Western Europe, or Asia or Africa for that matter, is every bit as much an illegal immigrant/alien as someone from Central America. As I said before, I would be an illegal immigrant if I entered a country illegally or overstayed my visa.

The fact that the majority, or maybe plurality, of illegal immigrants today are Latino does not in any way mean that it only applies to them.

NP, this. PP was clearly using illegal/legal as an adjective and not a noun. You're taking this too far.

NP: but actually the correct term is undocumented immigrant, not illegal immigrant. Definitely better than using illegal as a noun but still not ideal. Just FYI. I don’t think it’s worth a huge fight on an unrelated thread. But illegal is a loaded and also slippery term in this context so better to stick to the more neutral wording. FWIW in the original post the person had meant legal to work which is actually totally different; one can be very much legally in the country but not have work permission.

Actually, the term "illegal alien" is found in the US Code. And the terms illegal or illegally are all over the place, when referring to immigrants and immigration. So while I agree that there are better terms to use, they still are technically correct, at least in some instances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m one of the PPs^^ and I’ve never felt insecure about the decisions I made for my kids for school. What I’ve said - and others have too - is that Joe was so smug, sure of his viewpoint, clear-eyed, and judgmental about our decision-making. I think I used the word “disdain” about his negativity in those circumstances. What goes around, come around. Now he’s not so clear-eyed or sure when it’s his own kid. The article is his way of pretend, self-flagellation. They had already decided Malia is going to Walls.

Evidence to the contrary. What you are writing comes off as very personal. Why on earth do you care? Why spend a minute carrying that much emotion or feeling his disdain? If you were my kid I'd be telling you that you are responsible for giving others power over you. Also, your certainty regarding what his ultimate decision was or is makes you no different or better than the smugness disdain or certainly that you so disliked coming from him.

Were you not so emotionally invested in this Wheedon character you might be able to see that.

I don't know Wheedon and my kid goes to a strong IB school, so I have no direct or indirect go in this fight. But I really don't get your logic that being annoyed at hypocrisy shows insecurity about choices others have made. That doesn't make sense to me.

I can very easily see why someone would be annoyed by someone who sanctimoniously criticized acted like anyone who went charter was doing something wrong and now, when faced with the same dilemma others had before, he realizes the choice isn't so easy and he does it in a very public forum.

I am annoyed at some friends who are very outspoken about immigrant rights and $15/hr living wage who turn around and higher a nanny here illegal under the table at $10/hr. My annoyance at their hypocrisy doesn't mean that I am insecure about my decision to hire a legal nanny for $20/hr. One simply doesn't follow from the other.

People aren’t illegal, they are undocumented.

I agree with the PP's post you are responding to. And if you read carefully, they didn't call anyone illegal. The adjective referred to the work status, not the person.

Right, it says "here illegall[y]." That clearly refers to their status in the country, not their status as a human being.

I just got a visa for a foreign trip. If I either entered without a visa or overstayed my visa, I would be "there illegally" and it is no different than someone here in the US.

If you are going to try to be the word police, please have the decency to read the post you are trying to correct.

It’s not being “word police” it’s the fact that you’re too ignorant to understand that it is a slur. Do I also have to explain why the n word is wrong and why we don’t refer to asian Americans as Orientals?

Because those are even remotely equivalent. Describing someone's immigration status in the context of legal or illegal simply is not a slur, and you calling now ignorant for not agreeing with you doesn't mean you are right. And screaming that everyone must use your precise word choice, which is far from universally accepted, or be labeled ignorant is a paradigmatic example of the word police.

They are the same. I’m sorry you’re an ignorant person that doesn’t seem to understand the depersonalization of why it’s xenophonic and racist to call a person ILLEGAL, but hopefully your children are less disgusting. White immigrants are not called this slur- Latinos are. It’s repellent and so are you.

I hope your children are able to think critically rather than to simply spout trite slogans without regard to facts. No one is calling a person illegal. People are describing a person's immigration status as illegal. An illegal immigrant/alien does not lose his personhood. In fact, he can cure his illegal immigration status by returning home OR gaining legal status here. If illegal referred to something that went to someone's innate personhood, that status could not so easily be changed.

And you are wrong that it only applies to Latinos. Someone in the country illegal from Canada, Western Europe, or Asia or Africa for that matter, is every bit as much an illegal immigrant/alien as someone from Central America. As I said before, I would be an illegal immigrant if I entered a country illegally or overstayed my visa.

The fact that the majority, or maybe plurality, of illegal immigrants today are Latino does not in any way mean that it only applies to them.

NP, this. PP was clearly using illegal/legal as an adjective and not a noun. You're taking this too far.

NP: but actually the correct term is undocumented immigrant, not illegal immigrant. Definitely better than using illegal as a noun but still not ideal. Just FYI. I don’t think it’s worth a huge fight on an unrelated thread. But illegal is a loaded and also slippery term in this context so better to stick to the more neutral wording. FWIW in the original post the person had meant legal to work which is actually totally different; one can be very much legally in the country but not have work permission.

But undocumented isn't the "correct" term. It is a term that some people of a certain political viewpoint have decided is the only way to refer to something. To be clear, I have no problem with undocumented and would never correct someone and say it should be illegal. (Conservatives can have their own word police and I have heard people argue that only "illegal" should be used.). I have a real problem with either side trying to dictate terms of speech where there are multiple, reasonable ways to refer to something.

The same issue arises in other contexts. I have pro-choice friends who get very angry if you use the term "pro-life" and insist that it should be "anti-choice." I am pro-choice, but think this is a ridiculous attempt to control speech. Why couldn't someone who is "pro-life" just as easily demand that people use "anti-life" instead of "pro-choice?" It's fine to have debate and disagreement but you can't reasonably insist that someone adopt your preferred language that supports your view point on the issue.

[Anonymous]

Why has this thread been taken over non school discussions?