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

[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

No one has said anything about other marginalized groups. What are you on about? What lack of consideration? You literally invented the Pol Pot scenario in your head. Cambodian students would be well within their rights to complain about that too and I don’t think any Jews would try to stop them. The parents explicitly said they were fine with the hanging of the Palestinian flag, in fact. And FWIW, they initially saw the Hitler portrait as an unfortunate lapse in judgment and did not complain about it. It was brought into sharp relief by the persistent pattern of antisemitic abuse their kid continued to be exposed to, though.

It is really SO obvious when someone harbors antisemitic views. People are so bad at hiding it. “The utter lack of consideration of others while demanding different treatment and prioritization.” Just say “those insufferable Jews think they’re so special.” Asking that your child not be exposed to giant portraits of Hitler at school and be told she is a baby killer that deserves to die is not “requesting different treatment or prioritization.” FFS.

[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

Just stop - your antisemitism is so totally transparent. Did anyone draw Pol Pot? no they did not. They drew Hitler.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

I’m pretty sure you want to be antisemitic and are enjoying it. Don’t hold back.

[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:

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.

True, Jews have no right at all to complain about antisemitism.

[Anonymous]

Pro tip: save Machiavelli for later grades.

[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.

Students should learn about the Holocaust and how antisemitism is the world’s oldest prejudice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pro tip: save Machiavelli for later grades.

Right? If your lesson about Machiavelli has to involve a group art project to engage the children, maybe rethink it. Personally I would be irritated if I was paying that much tuition for group art projects during history.

[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:

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.

If you want to draw Hitler, my dude, just do it - no one’s gonna stop you. No need to go on a weird pseudo-intellectual rant about it on DCUM. Maybe don’t do it AT an elementary school, but otherwise it’s a free country. I used to see those Larouche weirdos marching around with Hitler signs all the time. There was a crazy guy outside the gates of my college DAILY holding a poster that said “just say no to Jewish lies.” With a little bit of initiative, you too could be an artiste.

[Anonymous]

Perfectly in bounds for people to be outraged by portraits of Pol Pot or other mass ethic cleansing murderers. But, the fact that Hitler is not the only one does not some how make it acceptable to draw him.

There is a lot of “whataboutism” on this board among people who don’t seem to accept that no one is pushing back against anti-Israeli perspectives but rather the conflation between the Israeli government and Jews in general.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Students should learn about the Holocaust and how antisemitism is the world’s oldest prejudice.

And how non-Jews saved the lives of countless Jews, while risking the lives of their own families.

[Anonymous]

I don’t know what shocks me more: the image of 11-year-old kids proudly posing with a portrait of Hitler, or the adults defending it and pretending not to understand why, as a society, we don’t allow children to create a full-size portrait of one of the most evil people to have ever existed. I can only imagine how the conversation went at home when those kids showed the assignment to their parents. : “ Johnny, what a great rendering of Hitler! There’s real emotion in his eyes. You’ve captured his soul. I’d hang this on our wall.”

[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:

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.

If you want to draw Hitler, my dude, just do it - no one’s gonna stop you. No need to go on a weird pseudo-intellectual rant about it on DCUM. Maybe don’t do it AT an elementary school, but otherwise it’s a free country. I used to see those Larouche weirdos marching around with Hitler signs all the time. There was a crazy guy outside the gates of my college DAILY holding a poster that said “just say no to Jewish lies.” With a little bit of initiative, you too could be an artiste.

I have zero desire to draw an image of Hitler, nor of a button, a tin can, Winston Churchill, Reba McIntire, etc etc etc. Drawing isnt my thing. But I fail to see how a random student choosing to draw Hitler in a situation where he's supposed to draw a Machiavellian leader is a big deal at all? And no one seems to have a valid argument for why we should melt down over this dictator in particular, just a bunch of "how dare you!" screeching with zero logic behind it

Because a giant drawing of Hitler is distressing for Jewish people to see. Not sure why this is hard to understand. It’s taboo and you know it but you are playing dumb because you want to paint Jews as fakers.

[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:

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.

If you want to draw Hitler, my dude, just do it - no one’s gonna stop you. No need to go on a weird pseudo-intellectual rant about it on DCUM. Maybe don’t do it AT an elementary school, but otherwise it’s a free country. I used to see those Larouche weirdos marching around with Hitler signs all the time. There was a crazy guy outside the gates of my college DAILY holding a poster that said “just say no to Jewish lies.” With a little bit of initiative, you too could be an artiste.

I have zero desire to draw an image of Hitler, nor of a button, a tin can, Winston Churchill, Reba McIntire, etc etc etc. Drawing isnt my thing. But I fail to see how a random student choosing to draw Hitler in a situation where he's supposed to draw a Machiavellian leader is a big deal at all? And no one seems to have a valid argument for why we should melt down over this dictator in particular, just a bunch of "how dare you!" screeching with zero logic behind it

People have given you many valid arguments. But honestly, if you don’t see a problem here, perhaps your school failed you in the same way Nysmith is failing its students. Maybe you should ask ChatGPT whether it’s appropriate for elementary or middle school students to draw a giant portrait of Hitler and pose with it.

[Anonymous]

I literally can’t fathom arguing that a giant portrait of hitler is appropriate. What if the assignment was famous symbols and they painted a swastika? This is not an art project for elementary middle or ever at any stage in school!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: I literally can’t fathom arguing that a giant portrait of hitler is appropriate. What if the assignment was famous symbols and they painted a swastika? This is not an art project for elementary middle or ever at any stage in school!

Agree. But, to me, the most egregious part was the attack on the child by her school mates. The poster seems like it may have been part of that attack, but, in any case, teacher should have stepped in on the Hitler poster. There are plenty of world leaders who misused their power without stepping into a genocidal one who seems to be lionized by some today.