Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yup, I would just tell the kid that the cause was worth the detention and let him/her serve. I do think the school is shitty for giving them detention though.

Why?

OP: I didn't write this, but schools exist to educate our children. This is an opportunity to encourage civic engagement. These kids are finally going to change our idiotic gun laws -- schools should be encouraging that, not suppressing it.

+1

PP who agrees with OP and hopes nothing more than karma on the PP who does not.

1) What civic engagement is going on here? An allowed walkout is an oxymoron.
2) How should schools decide which issues, and which sides, are allowed? Should students be allowed to engage in anti-abortion civic engagement?

You tell us, you are positively enthralled with this question. Oh, and name calling. Don't forget the name calling. It erases any sign of ignorance. Yup.

NP I have called nobody any names. I would say that schools have no right to decide which issues should be endorsed with allowed protests, and which issues students are not allowed to protest. I'd be interested to hear someone argue specifically against that point.

I agree with this. And that means that if you want to protest for stricter gun laws, you have to accept whatever standard consequence the school imposes for your actions. You can not expect accomodations because you happen to believe that your protest is the correct one.

+1,000

+2,000. I don't understand how a couple people here seem to think otherwise. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

+1

AGAIN:

No one here seems to disagree with that. No one was saying that students should be given anything. Why was that thought interjected into the premise?

OP and others disagreed with that very clearly when they said that the school should not punish based on this particular protest. That means the school is deciding which political views they're going to allow for protesting (effectively endorsing), and which they are going to punish.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yup, I would just tell the kid that the cause was worth the detention and let him/her serve. I do think the school is shitty for giving them detention though.

Why?

OP: I didn't write this, but schools exist to educate our children. This is an opportunity to encourage civic engagement. These kids are finally going to change our idiotic gun laws -- schools should be encouraging that, not suppressing it.

+1

PP who agrees with OP and hopes nothing more than karma on the PP who does not.

1) What civic engagement is going on here? An allowed walkout is an oxymoron.
2) How should schools decide which issues, and which sides, are allowed? Should students be allowed to engage in anti-abortion civic engagement?

You tell us, you are positively enthralled with this question. Oh, and name calling. Don't forget the name calling. It erases any sign of ignorance. Yup.

NP I have called nobody any names. I would say that schools have no right to decide which issues should be endorsed with allowed protests, and which issues students are not allowed to protest. I'd be interested to hear someone argue specifically against that point.

I agree with this. And that means that if you want to protest for stricter gun laws, you have to accept whatever standard consequence the school imposes for your actions. You can not expect accomodations because you happen to believe that your protest is the correct one.

No one here seems to disagree with that. No one was saying that students should be given anything. Why was that thought interjected into the premise?

pp. I read the OP, and presumably some others, as saying or implying that for this particular protest, the school should allow it. Again, the school is in no position to decide to endorse some protests but not others.

ITA here. There's a strong sense of entitlement that you see among DCUM parents regularly.

Kinda like the poster who thinks it is okay to have guns in schools (what he is implying by trying to derail the thread)?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not a walkout if there are no repercussions. it is just an activity.

THIS!!

I don't think anyone cares much about repercussions, though there is a poster that claims otherwise, I suspect to detract from the issue at hand.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yup, I would just tell the kid that the cause was worth the detention and let him/her serve. I do think the school is shitty for giving them detention though.

Why?

OP: I didn't write this, but schools exist to educate our children. This is an opportunity to encourage civic engagement. These kids are finally going to change our idiotic gun laws -- schools should be encouraging that, not suppressing it.

+1

PP who agrees with OP and hopes nothing more than karma on the PP who does not.

1) What civic engagement is going on here? An allowed walkout is an oxymoron.
2) How should schools decide which issues, and which sides, are allowed? Should students be allowed to engage in anti-abortion civic engagement?

You tell us, you are positively enthralled with this question. Oh, and name calling. Don't forget the name calling. It erases any sign of ignorance. Yup.

NP I have called nobody any names. I would say that schools have no right to decide which issues should be endorsed with allowed protests, and which issues students are not allowed to protest. I'd be interested to hear someone argue specifically against that point.

I agree with this. And that means that if you want to protest for stricter gun laws, you have to accept whatever standard consequence the school imposes for your actions. You can not expect accomodations because you happen to believe that your protest is the correct one.

No one here seems to disagree with that. No one was saying that students should be given anything. Why was that thought interjected into the premise?

pp. I read the OP, and presumably some others, as saying or implying that for this particular protest, the school should allow it. Again, the school is in no position to decide to endorse some protests but not others.

ITA here. There's a strong sense of entitlement that you see among DCUM parents regularly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yup, I would just tell the kid that the cause was worth the detention and let him/her serve. I do think the school is shitty for giving them detention though.

Why?

OP: I didn't write this, but schools exist to educate our children. This is an opportunity to encourage civic engagement. These kids are finally going to change our idiotic gun laws -- schools should be encouraging that, not suppressing it.

+1

PP who agrees with OP and hopes nothing more than karma on the PP who does not.

1) What civic engagement is going on here? An allowed walkout is an oxymoron.
2) How should schools decide which issues, and which sides, are allowed? Should students be allowed to engage in anti-abortion civic engagement?

You tell us, you are positively enthralled with this question. Oh, and name calling. Don't forget the name calling. It erases any sign of ignorance. Yup.

NP I have called nobody any names. I would say that schools have no right to decide which issues should be endorsed with allowed protests, and which issues students are not allowed to protest. I'd be interested to hear someone argue specifically against that point.

I agree with this. And that means that if you want to protest for stricter gun laws, you have to accept whatever standard consequence the school imposes for your actions. You can not expect accomodations because you happen to believe that your protest is the correct one.

No one here seems to disagree with that. No one was saying that students should be given anything. Why was that thought interjected into the premise?

That's actually the premise OP began with. She didn't believe the school has the authority to give her daughter detention for participating in this particular protest.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yup, I would just tell the kid that the cause was worth the detention and let him/her serve. I do think the school is shitty for giving them detention though.

Why?

OP: I didn't write this, but schools exist to educate our children. This is an opportunity to encourage civic engagement. These kids are finally going to change our idiotic gun laws -- schools should be encouraging that, not suppressing it.

+1

PP who agrees with OP and hopes nothing more than karma on the PP who does not.

1) What civic engagement is going on here? An allowed walkout is an oxymoron.
2) How should schools decide which issues, and which sides, are allowed? Should students be allowed to engage in anti-abortion civic engagement?

You tell us, you are positively enthralled with this question. Oh, and name calling. Don't forget the name calling. It erases any sign of ignorance. Yup.

NP I have called nobody any names. I would say that schools have no right to decide which issues should be endorsed with allowed protests, and which issues students are not allowed to protest. I'd be interested to hear someone argue specifically against that point.

I agree with this. And that means that if you want to protest for stricter gun laws, you have to accept whatever standard consequence the school imposes for your actions. You can not expect accomodations because you happen to believe that your protest is the correct one.

+1,000

+2,000. I don't understand how a couple people here seem to think otherwise. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

+1

AGAIN:

No one here seems to disagree with that. No one was saying that students should be given anything. Why was that thought interjected into the premise?

Anonymous wrote:It's not a walkout if there are no repercussions. it is just an activity.

THIS!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yup, I would just tell the kid that the cause was worth the detention and let him/her serve. I do think the school is shitty for giving them detention though.

Why?

OP: I didn't write this, but schools exist to educate our children. This is an opportunity to encourage civic engagement. These kids are finally going to change our idiotic gun laws -- schools should be encouraging that, not suppressing it.

+1

PP who agrees with OP and hopes nothing more than karma on the PP who does not.

1) What civic engagement is going on here? An allowed walkout is an oxymoron.
2) How should schools decide which issues, and which sides, are allowed? Should students be allowed to engage in anti-abortion civic engagement?

You tell us, you are positively enthralled with this question. Oh, and name calling. Don't forget the name calling. It erases any sign of ignorance. Yup.

NP I have called nobody any names. I would say that schools have no right to decide which issues should be endorsed with allowed protests, and which issues students are not allowed to protest. I'd be interested to hear someone argue specifically against that point.

I agree with this. And that means that if you want to protest for stricter gun laws, you have to accept whatever standard consequence the school imposes for your actions. You can not expect accomodations because you happen to believe that your protest is the correct one.

No one here seems to disagree with that. No one was saying that students should be given anything. Why was that thought interjected into the premise?

pp. I read the OP, and presumably some others, as saying or implying that for this particular protest, the school should allow it. Again, the school is in no position to decide to endorse some protests but not others.

It's not a walkout if there are no repercussions. it is just an activity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yup, I would just tell the kid that the cause was worth the detention and let him/her serve. I do think the school is shitty for giving them detention though.

Why?

OP: I didn't write this, but schools exist to educate our children. This is an opportunity to encourage civic engagement. These kids are finally going to change our idiotic gun laws -- schools should be encouraging that, not suppressing it.

+1

PP who agrees with OP and hopes nothing more than karma on the PP who does not.

1) What civic engagement is going on here? An allowed walkout is an oxymoron.
2) How should schools decide which issues, and which sides, are allowed? Should students be allowed to engage in anti-abortion civic engagement?

Per (1), sure. But if the threat of a walkout prompts schools to create a space in which expression of views is encouraged, the walkout has already succeeded.

Per (2), I'm sure are reasonable person such as yourself can understand how the issue of mass shootings in schools is more urgently germane to the student population, including the idiotic policy changes by the POTUS than topics such as abortion. A reasonable person like myself might even call your red herring about abortion a form of "whataboutism."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it a one day detention? Just let the kid serve it proudly. Get home work done. Like you said, civil disobedience has consequences and that is okay. Your kid did the right thing and he or she knows that.

Yeah, I'm torn between the lessons. On the one hand, yeah, civil disobedience has consequences. On the other hand, I genuinely don't recognize the authority of the school to detain my child for this. Maybe not a hill worth dying on.

Why don't you recognize their authority? Because she walked out for a good reason that you agreed with? What if she had walked out for a reason you didn't agree with, or started protesting daily or something?

I would think she'd serve this detention as a badge of honor, and you ought to help her see it that way. If you ALSO want to send a strongly-worded statement to the administration expressing your disappointment and anget that they didn't accommodate the walkout or offer an alternative, that's a good plan, too.

What's the point of an "accomodated" walkout? It makes as much sense as a sit-in when you're invited to the dinner.

The point is facilitating the students' civic involvement, which some schools are doing. The stated reason for the walkout is to commemorate the Parkland victims and other victims of school shootings. In that narrow reading of the point of the walkout, it would be fine for schools to accommodate it, or to say they won't punish kids for it.

Kids are being asked to do this regardless, but there's no rule that says some schools can't also buck the system as a whole.

So it's not actually a protest? They just want to have a moment of silence?

Maybe you tell your child how to protest, if they are even allowed to do so (doubt it) - but some of us do not live in a dictatorship household.

I'm not talking about individual households, I'm talking about what you said is the stated purpose of the walkout. It sounds like it's not actually a protest. Is that right?

Believe it or not, there is more than one poster who disagrees with you. But please, keep acting as if there is one. It is entertaining.

I'm also a different poster. I'm the one asking you about how a school should determine what protests it allows.

A lot of the determination is pragmatic and on a case-by-case basis. If a school system knows that protests are going to happen around a particular issue either way and that a lot of their students will feel motivated to participate, giving the students a way to participate on a limited basis without consequence (such as by giving students an exemption from detention for a protest on this date as long as the protest is limited to the planned 17 minutes and does not leave school property) gives students an incentive to participate in a way that minimizes disruption to the school.

The schools aren't doing this in support of this particular political issue (although I'm sure plenty of the people involved do) so much as because it's a lot harder for the school do deal with dozens to hundreds of students who simply disappear from the school property in the middle of the day when the school is responsible for their safety, police reports have to be made, school officials have to make sure every student is located and accounted for, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yup, I would just tell the kid that the cause was worth the detention and let him/her serve. I do think the school is shitty for giving them detention though.

Why?

OP: I didn't write this, but schools exist to educate our children. This is an opportunity to encourage civic engagement. These kids are finally going to change our idiotic gun laws -- schools should be encouraging that, not suppressing it.

+1

PP who agrees with OP and hopes nothing more than karma on the PP who does not.

1) What civic engagement is going on here? An allowed walkout is an oxymoron.
2) How should schools decide which issues, and which sides, are allowed? Should students be allowed to engage in anti-abortion civic engagement?

You tell us, you are positively enthralled with this question. Oh, and name calling. Don't forget the name calling. It erases any sign of ignorance. Yup.

NP I have called nobody any names. I would say that schools have no right to decide which issues should be endorsed with allowed protests, and which issues students are not allowed to protest. I'd be interested to hear someone argue specifically against that point.

I agree with this. And that means that if you want to protest for stricter gun laws, you have to accept whatever standard consequence the school imposes for your actions. You can not expect accomodations because you happen to believe that your protest is the correct one.

+1,000

+2,000. I don't understand how a couple people here seem to think otherwise. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yup, I would just tell the kid that the cause was worth the detention and let him/her serve. I do think the school is shitty for giving them detention though.

Why?

OP: I didn't write this, but schools exist to educate our children. This is an opportunity to encourage civic engagement. These kids are finally going to change our idiotic gun laws -- schools should be encouraging that, not suppressing it.

+1

PP who agrees with OP and hopes nothing more than karma on the PP who does not.

1) What civic engagement is going on here? An allowed walkout is an oxymoron.
2) How should schools decide which issues, and which sides, are allowed? Should students be allowed to engage in anti-abortion civic engagement?

You tell us, you are positively enthralled with this question. Oh, and name calling. Don't forget the name calling. It erases any sign of ignorance. Yup.

NP I have called nobody any names. I would say that schools have no right to decide which issues should be endorsed with allowed protests, and which issues students are not allowed to protest. I'd be interested to hear someone argue specifically against that point.

I agree with this. And that means that if you want to protest for stricter gun laws, you have to accept whatever standard consequence the school imposes for your actions. You can not expect accomodations because you happen to believe that your protest is the correct one.

No one here seems to disagree with that. No one was saying that students should be given anything. Why was that thought interjected into the premise?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yup, I would just tell the kid that the cause was worth the detention and let him/her serve. I do think the school is shitty for giving them detention though.

Why?

OP: I didn't write this, but schools exist to educate our children. This is an opportunity to encourage civic engagement. These kids are finally going to change our idiotic gun laws -- schools should be encouraging that, not suppressing it.

+1

PP who agrees with OP and hopes nothing more than karma on the PP who does not.

1) What civic engagement is going on here? An allowed walkout is an oxymoron.
2) How should schools decide which issues, and which sides, are allowed? Should students be allowed to engage in anti-abortion civic engagement?

You tell us, you are positively enthralled with this question. Oh, and name calling. Don't forget the name calling. It erases any sign of ignorance. Yup.

NP I have called nobody any names. I would say that schools have no right to decide which issues should be endorsed with allowed protests, and which issues students are not allowed to protest. I'd be interested to hear someone argue specifically against that point.

I agree with this. And that means that if you want to protest for stricter gun laws, you have to accept whatever standard consequence the school imposes for your actions. You can not expect accomodations because you happen to believe that your protest is the correct one.

+1,000

The name calling and composing of new and colorful "words" is keeping me here.