If they were not expelled...

Is it fair that the student they victimized would have to face them daily as part of the Latin family?

It also seems that sending emails from other's accounts has happened repeatedly before this incident. In hindsight, the administration probably wishes they would have sdhut this practice down sooner. However, at that time they would have been lambasted for overreacting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of these posters who are swiftly coming to the defense of these two "pranksters" are the reason why these kids NEVER mature. Parents are so quick to swoop in and fix whatever problem Jr. got himself into. Making mistakes, failing, losing the full-ride to Princeton are all learning experiences that children need to go through to become functioning adults. College students are now calling their parents 24/7 because they are incapable of making any decisions for themselves. Just maybe these two kids will not have their lives irreparably damaged. Have you ever considered that the expulsion may actually positively impact their lives? Maybe they've learned to be more compassionate and empathetic. Would these life lessons be learned if mommy bailed them out and somehow lobbied their children to stay in Latin?

Oh please. Nobody is saying that these two children ought not to be punished or face serious consequences is too harsh for the nature of this crime. The expulsion for the last third of their senior year seems particularly cruel - it gives them no opportunity to rehabilitate themselves at a different school. If they were expelled as sophomores, they could go to a different school, behave and perform well for two years, and be able to say to colleges or employers that they made a mistake and learned from it. This expulsion gives them no second chance - no opportunity to build a clean record at a different school.

Typo abvove. Should read:

Oh please. Nobody is saying that these two children ought not to be punished or face serious consequences - it just that the punishment is too harsh for the nature of this crime. The expulsion for the last third of their senior year seems particularly cruel - it gives them no opportunity to rehabilitate themselves at a different school. If they were expelled as sophomores, they could go to a different school, behave and perform well for two years, and be able to say to colleges or employers that they made a mistake and learned from it. This expulsion gives them no second chance - no opportunity to build a clean record at a different school.

There seems to be an argument that expulsion is too harsh a penalty because it will potentially interfere with the seniors' college plans. That is beside the point. Even if the students were allowed to stay at Latin after a suspension, it is highly likely that the bomb threat incident would cause a college to withdraw its admission offer. And justifiably so.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No idea but am pretty sure the prior joke emails weren't bomb threats and also pretty sure they didn't have the potential to do long-lasting harm to another child due to his ethnicity. It's the combination that led to the expulsion.

Now you're speculating. Didn't Cutts originally state that the boy wasn't targeted because of his religion? And when did ethnicity get in the equation? When and where has his ethnicity been mentioned?

No Cutts did not say this. I don't know the kids who sent the email but from the school rumor mill, I don't believe they meant the email as a hate crime. However, unintended consequences can be much worse than intended ones. I'm a WL parent who supports the administration's decision. This is harsh punishment but I believe deserved in this case. From emails the parents have gotten, it appears that Latin is working with the kids who were expelled to help in the transition to a new school. This can be a huge opportunity for these kids and others to learn the importance of thinking through what they say and do. They will not learn if there are not consequences for their actions.

Thank you, rational WL parent. I appreciate your contributions to this thread.

So the WL parents (and kids) who don't agree with this decision are not rational? Ok....

Considering I haven't seen a single WL parent other than PP express any concern for the victim, correct. For all the "we've known each other since 5th grade, we love each other" I hear when it comes to the bullies, folks are pretty silent on the victim. It makes me think this really was a bullying incident by popular kids against someone less so, and/or that the school isn't as tight as they like to believe.

First of all, this is false, since I went out of my way in my post to express concern for the victim. Second of all, concern for the victim kind of goes without saying, doesn't it? Are you under the impression that the parents here that have posted about what they view as the unnecessary harshness of the penalty are silently thinking "And the victim deserves it?" Because of course we feel badly for the victim while hoping for a just punishment.

Anonymous wrote:They are for evaluating discipline on a case by case basis - not one size fits all.

People making bomb threats get expelled. These two are lucky they weren't arrested and only expelled.

They are for evaluating discipline on a case by case basis - not one size fits all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm pretty sure sending a bomb threat would get a kid expelled from almost any school. No?

The fact that they did it from a Muslim kid's email makes it even more despicable. I'm sure they thought it was really funny. Bet they're not laughing now.

I feel terrible for the kid who they impersonated.

+1. Bomb threats will get you expelled from any school and fired (and arrested) from any job.

Can't believe the posters making excuses for the two idiots.

This.

Kids called in a bomb threat when I was in high school (before the internet...!) and they were expelled. Who has tolerance for this kind of shit? No one, that's who. Welcome to the real world.

+3. This is what happens when you makes bomb threats.

So you are for zero tolerance which Hs been repudiated by the bar association and pediatricians. Ok.

Really, the "bar association" and "Pediatricians" are all for excusing bomb threats?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm pretty sure sending a bomb threat would get a kid expelled from almost any school. No?

The fact that they did it from a Muslim kid's email makes it even more despicable. I'm sure they thought it was really funny. Bet they're not laughing now.

I feel terrible for the kid who they impersonated.

+1. Bomb threats will get you expelled from any school and fired (and arrested) from any job.

Can't believe the posters making excuses for the two idiots.

This.

Kids called in a bomb threat when I was in high school (before the internet...!) and they were expelled. Who has tolerance for this kind of shit? No one, that's who. Welcome to the real world.

+3. This is what happens when you makes bomb threats.

So you are for zero tolerance which Hs been repudiated by the bar association and pediatricians. Ok.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm pretty sure sending a bomb threat would get a kid expelled from almost any school. No?

The fact that they did it from a Muslim kid's email makes it even more despicable. I'm sure they thought it was really funny. Bet they're not laughing now.

I feel terrible for the kid who they impersonated.

+1. Bomb threats will get you expelled from any school and fired (and arrested) from any job.

Can't believe the posters making excuses for the two idiots.

This.

Kids called in a bomb threat when I was in high school (before the internet...!) and they were expelled. Who has tolerance for this kind of shit? No one, that's who. Welcome to the real world.

+3. This is what happens when you makes bomb threats.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No idea but am pretty sure the prior joke emails weren't bomb threats and also pretty sure they didn't have the potential to do long-lasting harm to another child due to his ethnicity. It's the combination that led to the expulsion.

Now you're speculating. Didn't Cutts originally state that the boy wasn't targeted because of his religion? And when did ethnicity get in the equation? When and where has his ethnicity been mentioned?

No Cutts did not say this. I don't know the kids who sent the email but from the school rumor mill, I don't believe they meant the email as a hate crime. However, unintended consequences can be much worse than intended ones. I'm a WL parent who supports the administration's decision. This is harsh punishment but I believe deserved in this case. From emails the parents have gotten, it appears that Latin is working with the kids who were expelled to help in the transition to a new school. This can be a huge opportunity for these kids and others to learn the importance of thinking through what they say and do. They will not learn if there are not consequences for their actions.

Wouldn't logical consequences be an appropriate response to the unintended consequences of their action? Or are you conflating the unintended consequences of their actions (hurt and pain caused) with the intentional consequences of the administration (expulsion)which I'm agreeing these two students most likely did not expect. For the unintended hurt or disruption caused by their thoughtless actions wouldn't the route of an apology, working to repair it with the community through service or education bring about the most learning for everyone? How does exclusion help here exactly for the kids involved and the kids in the 'to learn' as you state above? Please explain. And feel free to check out the diagrams of the "expulsion to prison" pipeline in the sources below.

http://knowledgecenter.csg.org/kc/content/unintended-consequences-school-discpline

https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/sites/default/files/sssta/20110323_Implementation5.pdf

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/112/5/1206.full?cited-by=yes;112/5/1206

I wanted to read these before responding. The overarching theme I saw in all three sites was that expulsion and/or suspension can increase dropout rates, crime, and drug abuse. However, in reading the material, the caveat is usually made that this “is for students at risk” or “when students are provided with no immediate educational alternative”.

I understand this and do not want the kids who were expelled to go down a path like this. But I also think about the kid whose email was used. I can’t imagine the fear and alienation he felt when he first saw the email. I don’t know that this kid has had to deal with discrimination because of his religion in or out of school, but I’m sure he is very aware of what could happen to him and his family. The news is full of what could be done to him.
If I trust the school’s correspondence, they are helping the students who were expelled. They are not leaving them or the families to face this alone. I’m very glad that they are doing this. I think this shows the kids that they have made a mistake and there is a cost to that, but that doesn’t mean that they are no longer worthy of help or support or a second chance.

Again, I feel for all that are involved and wished we didn’t have to deal with this as a school community and a society, but that is the reality. I truly hope the kids expelled are able to learn something.
-----------
Below are some of the highlights I pulled out from the sites you gave.
The knowledge Center graphic has a couple of key statements/stats that stand out to me. When talking about the impact of expulsion or suspension on the dropout crisis, it states “particularly for those students at greatest risk.” It doesn’t seem to me that someone who was already accepted to Princeton is at the “greatest risk”.

Further down when it mentions the 56% who failed to graduate, it mentions those with 11 or more suspensions or expulsions. I don’t know the history of the two kids who sent the email, but there has been no indication that they have a history of expulsion/suspensions.

The information provided at the safe support site seems to be a power point presentation but does not show where the information provided comes from in terms of research. I did find interesting the following: “Developmental stages of wiring in early adolescence resemble wiring of toddlers in which emotional deregulation and egocentrism are high.” The corresponding chart, shows that he was talking about 13 year olds. The chart only shows images for kids up to 15.5 years of age. I presume the high school seniors are older than that. The presentation also talks about how when pressured or under stress, a young person’s ability to “stop and think” drops off rapidly. Further it states that exposure to prior trauma (e.g., child abuse, violence) worsens performance dramatically. No one has claimed that the two students who sent the email fit this description.

The last site discusses the use of zero tolerance which does not apply to this case. As several have said, expulsion is one of the punishments listed in the handbook but not the only one. There is also an appeals process which has been shared with the parents of the kids expelled (according to the school administration). The following quote from this site links back to the overarching theme I mentioned above.
“Suspension and expulsion may exacerbate academic deterioration, and when students are provided with no immediate educational alternative, student alienation, delinquency, crime, and substance abuse may ensue.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

+1. If your child is one of the hundreds wait listed at Princeton and your hasn't, say, phoned in a bomb threat or done anything else to be punished by their school (or arrested by the authorities) wouldn't you puzzle why this kid gets to keep their spot?



And if some Latin students did things where the punishment was expulsion under the family handbook but were allowed to stay (which has happened), wouldn't you puzzle why your child was expelled?

I believe someone pointed out that the handbook doesn't say expulsion is the only option. It is my understanding that the administration felt that this case rose to the level of expulsion. Perhaps that was the case with the other students, expulsion wasn't the only option, but in those cases the administration didn't feel that it warranted expulsion. Were the other cases bomb threats from a Muslim student? I would want to know the specifics of the previous cases before deciding whether there is something amiss with the decision for this case.

Yet you will never know. I generally trust schools/trust Latin. Were they often lenient? Yes. Were there high expectations and a lot of mentoring to counterbalance that? Yes. However, this is making me look back at all the inconsistencies when our child was there and wonder when she benefitted, when she didn't. Of course, for us--her whole future wasn't on the line. Or maybe it was and we didn't know? I would have liked more than a one day consideration here and thought given to these children's histories with the school. This is not about Princeton. This is not about the times we live in. This is about who they have shown themselves to be as people over time, and the specifics of the case, which the school is privy to.

Anonymous wrote:

+1. If your child is one of the hundreds wait listed at Princeton and your hasn't, say, phoned in a bomb threat or done anything else to be punished by their school (or arrested by the authorities) wouldn't you puzzle why this kid gets to keep their spot?



And if some Latin students did things where the punishment was expulsion under the family handbook but were allowed to stay (which has happened), wouldn't you puzzle why your child was expelled?

I believe someone pointed out that the handbook doesn't say expulsion is the only option. It is my understanding that the administration felt that this case rose to the level of expulsion. Perhaps that was the case with the other students, expulsion wasn't the only option, but in those cases the administration didn't feel that it warranted expulsion. Were the other cases bomb threats from a Muslim student? I would want to know the specifics of the previous cases before deciding whether there is something amiss with the decision for this case.

Anonymous wrote:

+1. If your child is one of the hundreds wait listed at Princeton and your hasn't, say, phoned in a bomb threat or done anything else to be punished by their school (or arrested by the authorities) wouldn't you puzzle why this kid gets to keep their spot?



And if some Latin students did things where the punishment was expulsion under the family handbook but were allowed to stay (which has happened), wouldn't you puzzle why your child was expelled?

Well, that's inconvenient!

+1. If your child is one of the hundreds wait listed at Princeton and your hasn't, say, phoned in a bomb threat or done anything else to be punished by their school (or arrested by the authorities) wouldn't you puzzle why this kid gets to keep their spot?



And if some Latin students did things where the punishment was expulsion under the family handbook but were allowed to stay (which has happened), wouldn't you puzzle why your child was expelled?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These kids did something for which they could be charged with a federal crime - made a bomb threat. They falsely implicated a classmate whom they had known for at least 4 years. And his religion did play a factor.

Being expelled from school feels right to me. It was colossally stupid and very far over the line of decency. It also violating everything WL says they stand for.

Kudos to Ms Cutts for acting swiftly and decisively.

I agree with this. These are not children. They are 17 year old young adults who should be expelled and grateful they aren't being charged with a crime. Allegedly, at least one is smart enough for Princeton, and hasn't lived under a rock the last dozen years. It's hard to believe that they wouldn't know how serious and unfunny it would be to impersonate a Muslim student and send a bomb threat to 500 people.

Don't they have to report any low grades, suspensions or expulsions to any colleges that have accepted them? I hope so. They need to really appreciate the seriousness of their actions and face any and all consequences.

I seriously hope along the line people treat your teens more charitably.

http://www.medicaldaily.com/adulthood-extended-age-25-child-psychologists-uk-257835

"Neuroscience has made these massive advances where we now don't think that things just stop at a certain age, that actually there's evidence of brain development well into early twenties and that actually the time at which things stop is much later than we first thought," Antrobus said.

Now, child psychologists such as Antrobus argue that adolescence comprises three stages, including an early period of 12-14 years of age, a middle period of 15-17 years of age, and “late adolescence” from 18 years of age to 25. Years of neurological research have shown human cognitive development to continue into the time period traditionally defined as early adulthood, as emotional maturity, self-image, and judgment evolve along with changes in the prefrontal cortex.

Thank you for this.

Plus, please keep in mind that not every kid comes from families like those posting on DCUM.

So, which is it? Was the kid congenitally unable to make a good choice because his brain was underdeveloped? Or was he unable because his parents were "not like DCUM posters" even though his parents DID have the wherewithal to get him into a highly competitive charter?

Even if BOTH are true, I can see why Princeton might decide that someone congenitally unable to make good decisions might be a bad bet for a highly coveted spot.

+1. If your child is one of the hundreds wait listed at Princeton and your hasn't, say, phoned in a bomb threat or done anything else to be punished by their school (or arrested by the authorities) wouldn't you puzzle why this kid gets to keep their spot?

Anonymous wrote:Seriously, if the two kids were Muslim would anyone be questioning the expulsion? Feel sorry for them, maybe, but not arguing that in this climate that's the right thing to do. How is arguing against expulsion here not just white privilege expecting understanding treatment of kids who obviously never would do anything bad and just didn't think things through, whereas if the kids were black and/or Muslim there would be an unspoken understanding that there was some problem with their home life or upbringing that ultimately led the kids to these bad decisions?

Previous posters have indicated the children are not white PP.