Nysmith allegedly allowed antisemetic bullying and expelled the kids who's parents complained

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's hard to take this stuff seriously when anyone who criticizes the IDF or Israel attacks on Palestinians gets labelled "anti-Semetic". Seems kinda like a cheap trick and manipulation

It's kind of hard to believe that people can't see that lessons that involving drawing Hitler (in any context), canceling Holocaust survivors and expelling three students in March is anything other than anti-Semitic. No one is challenging criticism of the IDF or Israel's heavy-handed response to October 7th, but rather, you know, anti-Semitism. Like "you're the reason people hate Jews" or celebrating (incorrectly) an October 7th death.

How is this anti-Semitic?

And for that matter, why would drawing Hitler be anti-Semitic either? Unless youre lionizing the guy... I mean drawing someone is a neutral act. We hire courtroom artists to draw the most vile criminals and murderers, that's hardly an endorsement of them.

Sure. they could also draw swastikas as a neutral act just to show the symbols of the strong Machiavellian leader.

Sure. I'd also advise you never to travel to east asia, where swastikas are still widely used and literally can be observed on google maps marking temples every 200 feet or so. This oversensitivity to historical facts and symbols is what makes people roll their eyes. Again, unless the school is ENDORSING these things, what exactly would be anti-semitic about portraying historical accuracy?

So just to be clear - your position is that people who are offended by Nazi swastikas are “oversensitive” because Hindus use a similar symbol for totally benign, non-Nazi reasons? I don’t think anyone in America in 2025 is going to see a swastika (particularly if the assignment had to do with nazis) and think “oh, must be the Hindu symbol. It would be oversensitive of me to react.” Like what even ?

Yeah, my point is it's a widely used, ancient symbol used in various cultures and co-opted by the nazis. Unless youre arguing that the combination of lines is some magical emblem, in which case, half of asia would be implicated, then it makes sense that students might sketch it out as part of a historical lesson. Or are we not supposed to talk or even touch on WWII?

It’s very clear that you’re not arguing in good faith here but, just for the record: symbols have the meanings we imbue them with as a society, and that can differ from region to region. It is beyond any reasonable dispute that if people see a swastika in America in 2025, they’re going to assume it’s a nazi symbol (not an Hindu one) and react in very predictable ways.

Here, students were apparently asked to depict a Machiavellian leader and chose to draw a giant portrait of Hitler. The teacher/school should have foreseen that, regardless of the specifics of the assignment, that portrait might provoke a strong emotional response from Jewish students. The fact that they apparently DIDN’T foresee that, or didn’t care, speaks volumes about their priorities. And whether you think the assignment was actively malicious in some way (I personally don’t), it’s very clear from this and the many, many other incidents detailed in the complaint that the school’s priorities do not include the welfare of their Jewish students.

Re: this part: “it makes sense that students might sketch it out as part of a historical lesson. Or are we not supposed to talk or even touch on WWII?” To be clear, this was not an assignment about WWII/given in the context of any larger lesson about WWII or the Holocaust. In fact, when the parents tried to PROVIDE that context in the form of a Holocaust Memorial Day speaker, they were shut down and the event was cancelled.

So it wasnt even a specific order to draw Hitler, just one kid picked Hitler, during an assignment when you were literally supposed to chose a morally wrong and awful leader? OMG. How are people genuinely upset about this?! Touch some grass.

Exactly. These people are deranged

That's not what the assignment was. Obama was one of the leaders chosen.

[Anonymous]

Jewish children in America should not be discriminatged against.

Murdering Jewish thugs in Israel deserve every last bit of scorn on the planet, and those who defend them should understand they are also deeply reviled.

Both these things can be true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's hard to take this stuff seriously when anyone who criticizes the IDF or Israel attacks on Palestinians gets labelled "anti-Semetic". Seems kinda like a cheap trick and manipulation

It's kind of hard to believe that people can't see that lessons that involving drawing Hitler (in any context), canceling Holocaust survivors and expelling three students in March is anything other than anti-Semitic. No one is challenging criticism of the IDF or Israel's heavy-handed response to October 7th, but rather, you know, anti-Semitism. Like "you're the reason people hate Jews" or celebrating (incorrectly) an October 7th death.

How is this anti-Semitic?

And for that matter, why would drawing Hitler be anti-Semitic either? Unless youre lionizing the guy... I mean drawing someone is a neutral act. We hire courtroom artists to draw the most vile criminals and murderers, that's hardly an endorsement of them.

Sure. they could also draw swastikas as a neutral act just to show the symbols of the strong Machiavellian leader.

Sure. I'd also advise you never to travel to east asia, where swastikas are still widely used and literally can be observed on google maps marking temples every 200 feet or so. This oversensitivity to historical facts and symbols is what makes people roll their eyes. Again, unless the school is ENDORSING these things, what exactly would be anti-semitic about portraying historical accuracy?

So just to be clear - your position is that people who are offended by Nazi swastikas are “oversensitive” because Hindus use a similar symbol for totally benign, non-Nazi reasons? I don’t think anyone in America in 2025 is going to see a swastika (particularly if the assignment had to do with nazis) and think “oh, must be the Hindu symbol. It would be oversensitive of me to react.” Like what even ?

Yeah, my point is it's a widely used, ancient symbol used in various cultures and co-opted by the nazis. Unless youre arguing that the combination of lines is some magical emblem, in which case, half of asia would be implicated, then it makes sense that students might sketch it out as part of a historical lesson. Or are we not supposed to talk or even touch on WWII?

It’s very clear that you’re not arguing in good faith here but, just for the record: symbols have the meanings we imbue them with as a society, and that can differ from region to region. It is beyond any reasonable dispute that if people see a swastika in America in 2025, they’re going to assume it’s a nazi symbol (not an Hindu one) and react in very predictable ways.

Here, students were apparently asked to depict a Machiavellian leader and chose to draw a giant portrait of Hitler. The teacher/school should have foreseen that, regardless of the specifics of the assignment, that portrait might provoke a strong emotional response from Jewish students. The fact that they apparently DIDN’T foresee that, or didn’t care, speaks volumes about their priorities. And whether you think the assignment was actively malicious in some way (I personally don’t), it’s very clear from this and the many, many other incidents detailed in the complaint that the school’s priorities do not include the welfare of their Jewish students.

Re: this part: “it makes sense that students might sketch it out as part of a historical lesson. Or are we not supposed to talk or even touch on WWII?” To be clear, this was not an assignment about WWII/given in the context of any larger lesson about WWII or the Holocaust. In fact, when the parents tried to PROVIDE that context in the form of a Holocaust Memorial Day speaker, they were shut down and the event was cancelled.

So it wasn't even a specific order to draw Hitler, just one kid picked Hitler, during an assignment when you were literally supposed to chose a morally wrong and awful leader? OMG. How are people genuinely upset about this?! Touch some grass.

Exactly. These people are deranged

That's not what the assignment was. Obama was one of the leaders chosen.

It's interesting some try to make it that the assignment was to chose a terrible evil leader, but then the head of school himself said someone chose Obama. The point of an assignment like this is to explore Machiavelli's ideas and maybe to even see good leaders can have many flaws and to explore "does the end justify the means?" Whether you are a fan of Obama or thought he was not a good president, you can find positive leadership qualities and flaws and poor choices as well (as with most leaders). Choosing Hitler, as I mentioned before, shows the kids in that group were not understanding the assignment and this is not bad/good. I am willing to assume these were good kids who just though well "Machiavellian" means evil so we will chose someone evil and perhaps the lesson itself was not at the right level for them.This could have been a great opportunity to teach and intervene. It was a lapse by the teacher, likely a misunderstanding of the assignment by the kids and poor judgement by the school. The optics were terrible. Then the head of school poured gasoline on a spark. When you add that poor judgment to everything else the family reports, it shows a larger issue and the school needs intervention at various levels. Getting defensive just makes the school look worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jewish children in America should not be discriminatged against.

Murdering Jewish thugs in Israel deserve every last bit of scorn on the planet, and those who defend them should understand they are also deeply reviled.

Both these things can be true.

Why are you bringing up Israel? That has nothing to do with the topic at hand. You just want an excuse to talk about “murdering Jewish thugs.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jewish children in America should not be discriminatged against.

Murdering Jewish thugs in Israel deserve every last bit of scorn on the planet, and those who defend them should understand they are also deeply reviled.

Both these things can be true.

Why are you bringing up Israel? That has nothing to do with the topic at hand. You just want an excuse to talk about “murdering Jewish thugs.”

Children need to be educated that Judaism is a religion, and Israel a state, and that the atrocities committed by the latter do not reflect on all Jews even if Israel holds itself out to the world as the "Jewish State" and has engaged in utterly reprehensible conduct for many years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jewish children in America should not be discriminatged against.

Murdering Jewish thugs in Israel deserve every last bit of scorn on the planet, and those who defend them should understand they are also deeply reviled.

Both these things can be true.

Why are you bringing up Israel? That has nothing to do with the topic at hand. You just want an excuse to talk about “murdering Jewish thugs.”

Children need to be educated that Judaism is a religion, and Israel a state, and that the atrocities committed by the latter do not reflect on all Jews even if Israel holds itself out to the world as the "Jewish State" and has engaged in utterly reprehensible conduct for many years.

There is another area involved that has also committed atrocities.

But, as for Machiavelli--again, "bright/gifted kids" are not necessarily mature. One step at a time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jewish children in America should not be discriminatged against.

Murdering Jewish thugs in Israel deserve every last bit of scorn on the planet, and those who defend them should understand they are also deeply reviled.

Both these things can be true.

Then the word “Jewish” doesn’t need to be included in the second paragraph, does it?

[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:It's hard to take this stuff seriously when anyone who criticizes the IDF or Israel attacks on Palestinians gets labelled "anti-Semetic". Seems kinda like a cheap trick and manipulation

It's kind of hard to believe that people can't see that lessons that involving drawing Hitler (in any context), canceling Holocaust survivors and expelling three students in March is anything other than anti-Semitic. No one is challenging criticism of the IDF or Israel's heavy-handed response to October 7th, but rather, you know, anti-Semitism. Like "you're the reason people hate Jews" or celebrating (incorrectly) an October 7th death.

How is this anti-Semitic?

And for that matter, why would drawing Hitler be anti-Semitic either? Unless youre lionizing the guy... I mean drawing someone is a neutral act. We hire courtroom artists to draw the most vile criminals and murderers, that's hardly an endorsement of them.

Sure. they could also draw swastikas as a neutral act just to show the symbols of the strong Machiavellian leader.

Sure. I'd also advise you never to travel to east asia, where swastikas are still widely used and literally can be observed on google maps marking temples every 200 feet or so. This oversensitivity to historical facts and symbols is what makes people roll their eyes. Again, unless the school is ENDORSING these things, what exactly would be anti-semitic about portraying historical accuracy?

So just to be clear - your position is that people who are offended by Nazi swastikas are “oversensitive” because Hindus use a similar symbol for totally benign, non-Nazi reasons? I don’t think anyone in America in 2025 is going to see a swastika (particularly if the assignment had to do with nazis) and think “oh, must be the Hindu symbol. It would be oversensitive of me to react.” Like what even ?

Yeah, my point is it's a widely used, ancient symbol used in various cultures and co-opted by the nazis. Unless youre arguing that the combination of lines is some magical emblem, in which case, half of asia would be implicated, then it makes sense that students might sketch it out as part of a historical lesson. Or are we not supposed to talk or even touch on WWII?

It’s very clear that you’re not arguing in good faith here but, just for the record: symbols have the meanings we imbue them with as a society, and that can differ from region to region. It is beyond any reasonable dispute that if people see a swastika in America in 2025, they’re going to assume it’s a nazi symbol (not an Hindu one) and react in very predictable ways.

Here, students were apparently asked to depict a Machiavellian leader and chose to draw a giant portrait of Hitler. The teacher/school should have foreseen that, regardless of the specifics of the assignment, that portrait might provoke a strong emotional response from Jewish students. The fact that they apparently DIDN’T foresee that, or didn’t care, speaks volumes about their priorities. And whether you think the assignment was actively malicious in some way (I personally don’t), it’s very clear from this and the many, many other incidents detailed in the complaint that the school’s priorities do not include the welfare of their Jewish students.

Re: this part: “it makes sense that students might sketch it out as part of a historical lesson. Or are we not supposed to talk or even touch on WWII?” To be clear, this was not an assignment about WWII/given in the context of any larger lesson about WWII or the Holocaust. In fact, when the parents tried to PROVIDE that context in the form of a Holocaust Memorial Day speaker, they were shut down and the event was cancelled.

So it wasn't even a specific order to draw Hitler, just one kid picked Hitler, during an assignment when you were literally supposed to chose a morally wrong and awful leader? OMG. How are people genuinely upset about this?! Touch some grass.

Exactly. These people are deranged

That's not what the assignment was. Obama was one of the leaders chosen.

It's interesting some try to make it that the assignment was to chose a terrible evil leader, but then the head of school himself said someone chose Obama. The point of an assignment like this is to explore Machiavelli's ideas and maybe to even see good leaders can have many flaws and to explore "does the end justify the means?" Whether you are a fan of Obama or thought he was not a good president, you can find positive leadership qualities and flaws and poor choices as well (as with most leaders). Choosing Hitler, as I mentioned before, shows the kids in that group were not understanding the assignment and this is not bad/good. I am willing to assume these were good kids who just though well "Machiavellian" means evil so we will chose someone evil and perhaps the lesson itself was not at the right level for them.This could have been a great opportunity to teach and intervene. It was a lapse by the teacher, likely a misunderstanding of the assignment by the kids and poor judgement by the school. The optics were terrible. Then the head of school poured gasoline on a spark. When you add that poor judgment to everything else the family reports, it shows a larger issue and the school needs intervention at various levels. Getting defensive just makes the school look worse.

It was not a flawed assignment, rather it was a great idea of a genuinely thought provoking experiment. By all definitions of the word, Adolf Hitler is archetypally machiavellian, meaning the student did the work perfectly. Whatever student chose Obama seemed to be the one more guilty of veering of course to make some kind of political statement- whatever kid chose Hitler did the job quite well. And who is the teacher to get upset that a student correctly picked out a "morally flawed" (to put it mildly) leader when that was quite literally what they were told to do? Would there be an equally enraged reaction if someone had picked, say, Pol Pot, or Stalin, or Leopold II? Where do we draw the line when it comes to ethnic genocides and which ones we react and make completely off limits to even mention? There was no lionizing or praising Hitler by virtue of this assignment, rather an impugnment of his character. And yes, it does reflect badly on people when there is such an uproar made over this relatively harmless lesson, when it seems no other oppressed group has the same expectation of censorship during, again, an assignment made to depict morally flawed and selfishly ambitious to a fault leaders.

[Anonymous]

We draw the line when the outcome of the assignment - whatever it was - was the drawing of Hitler. Hard stop. There is no acceptable assignment where the result is a portrait of Hitler.

[Anonymous]

It does seem like the assignment was to illustrate each body area - head, torso, arm x2, etc, with a different historical leader that each team chose to represent their selected attribute from Machiavelli. The teacher should not have allowed the face to be Hitler’s. A WWII German military torso with the face of, say, Peter the Great would likely to be triggering quite as much upset. The teacher should have given more guidance and oversight on this project.

[Anonymous]

^would likely NOT be triggering as much upset. Apologies for typo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jewish children in America should not be discriminatged against.

Murdering Jewish thugs in Israel deserve every last bit of scorn on the planet, and those who defend them should understand they are also deeply reviled.

Both these things can be true.

Why are you bringing up Israel? That has nothing to do with the topic at hand. You just want an excuse to talk about “murdering Jewish thugs.”

Children need to be educated that Judaism is a religion, and Israel a state, and that the atrocities committed by the latter do not reflect on all Jews even if Israel holds itself out to the world as the "Jewish State" and has engaged in utterly reprehensible conduct for many years.

Should the children be informed that AIPAC is behind all the evil perpetrated by Netanyahu?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We draw the line when the outcome of the assignment - whatever it was - was the drawing of Hitler. Hard stop. There is no acceptable assignment where the result is a portrait of Hitler.

Right, and once again we have this rambling about how a drawing of Hitler is completely off limits, with literally zero self awareness or consideration for other marginalized groups who have been similarly targeted for ethnic erasure. Which is exactly why it's hard to take seriously and gets on people's nerves, the utter lack of consideration of others while demanding different treatment and prioritization. No attempt to even justify why we should be mad about a drawing of Hilter but not of Pol Pot or Talaat Pasha

[Anonymous]

Also, reminder that we are talking about 11 year olds. Somehow doubt Pol Pot and the other person are part of the 6th grade history curriculum whereas as as someone said above, Hitler is an archetypical evil historical person that kids know about and whose image is familiar to them. My similar aged kids have graphic historical novels about D-Day and various other WWII stories all of which contain drawings of Hitler. He’s a satirized character in an award winning Broadway musical for heavens sake - the Producers. The kids are likely just familiar with his face and used him as a recognizable way to symbolize bad.

I’ve been through college and don’t even know who Tallat Pasha is let alone how to draw the person.

The real focus should be on the child and how she was treated and whether the parents of the other children, teachers and administrators intervened strongly enough. The allegations there are horrific.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We draw the line when the outcome of the assignment - whatever it was - was the drawing of Hitler. Hard stop. There is no acceptable assignment where the result is a portrait of Hitler.

Right, and once again we have this rambling about how a drawing of Hitler is completely off limits, with literally zero self awareness or consideration for other marginalized groups who have been similarly targeted for ethnic erasure. Which is exactly why it's hard to take seriously and gets on people's nerves, the utter lack of consideration of others while demanding different treatment and prioritization. No attempt to even justify why we should be mad about a drawing of Hilter but not of Pol Pot or Talaat Pasha

I do not want to but must agree with this