*Sigh* Can I just combine the stories about PETA antics and zero-tolerance idiocies into one post? It would be easier. Thanks.
First up, those wacky anti-science PETA activists disrupt a middle school to protest eating chicken. Needless to say, PETA handed out literature and spoke to kids without getting school or parental permission first; you never know when those guardians might try something tricky like teaching kids the science that supports medical research.
Although the ingestion of fried chicken could be discouraged on the grounds of bad nutrition and digestive discomfort, PETA's constant refrain that children have a "natural empathy" for animals, and their use of that as an excuse for propanda distribution, is enough to give anyone indigestion as well.
Next, Devoted Reader Mark T sends along this story of a patriotic 14-year-old who has been suspended for drawing military figures engaged in combat.
A 14-year-old New Jersey schoolboy — whose dad and stepdad are in the military — was suspended for five days because he drew a "patriotic" stick figure of a U.S Marine blowing away a Taliban fighter, officials said yesterday.
"He's been punished for the drawing," said Tinton Falls school superintendent Leonard Kelpsh. "We felt it was highly inappropriate, and we took it very seriously."
Inappropriate why? Was it threatening to anyone in the school? Was it meant to scare other students? Or is it simply unacceptable to hold pro-war, anti-Taliban thoughts in New Jersey schools?
Scott Switzer, of Colts Neck, was sent home last week from Tinton Falls Middle School (search) after a teacher saw the image on a computer and described it to the principal...
"Truth be told, it's a Marine shooting a terrorist Taliban," he told The Post. "It's just a picture. What upsets me most is that the principal would dare say it's not normal. To me, it's patriotic."...
Scott said school officials may have been edgy because of an earlier incident in which other students had drawn a "very Columbine-ish" picture.
Key phrase here is "other students." If I read this correctly, Scott is being punished in part because of what other students did. If he didn't draw the "Columbine-ish" pictures, why should any of that tension spill over on him?
Officials said they were concerned because his drawing contained a reference to another student who they feared might have been a potential target. But a local psychologist who examined the teenager said the sketch was benign.
"I don't attribute pathological significance to it," said Dr. Gloria Tillman, a psychologist who treated the boy for ADD. "I have to wonder what is expected of our children today when 1) our country is at war and 2) both his father and stepfather are out fighting the war."
I'm not so concerned about what is expected of our children as I am about what is expected of our school officials, especially in terms of judgement and common sense and viewing things in context. If the school really felt that another child was threatened, then they may have had a point in isolating Scott and talking to him. But if the picture doesn't really have any threatening messages to anyone in particular, and if the boy's own psychologist doesn't see a problem, what right does the school have to label the boy as "not normal?" Since when is it "not normal" for young boys to be fascinated by weaponry, war, and battles - especially boys whose family members are in the military?