Problematic American Mentality
I should have known better, but alas, I wasn't really paying attention, so you know how it is going to end--my eyes incredulously glued to the television with the eventual shaking of the head in disgust. To what you ask?Well, it wasn't one of America's finest moments, but first, a little amorous back-drop. The beautiful Mrs. Grisby and I were deeply engrossed in conversation on our living room couch. I had come up from inspecting my handiwork [on a remodel project in the basement] and had planted myself next to the Missus. She had been watching tv and so it was on in the background, providing a screening function for our snoring children. Normally, I dislike conversing with a television on for inevitabley something will catch my eye or ear and dang it if my efficient male mind doesn't tune out all other environmental stimuli. Namely, my wife's voice. As you might imagine, that doesn't usually go over very well. Who knew that such a refined woman could throw a remote control hard enough to create a welt?
In all actuality, this time was different. And by different, I mean that I was focused like a sign-language interpreter at an evangelistic meeting. I mean, I was zeroed in and could not be swayed. Then the unthinkable happened. My lovely wife, with her laudable, multi-tasking feminine mind, stopped talking and looked at the television. What's this? Severe weather? The Twins' score or Vikings' draft portentions? Uh...no. My circadian rhythms must have been off for it was that campy news magazine, A Current Affair. And this was there top story, click here for video.
"The staff of Fairmount Park Elementary School shot videotape of the kindergarten girl being handcuffed behind her back, and put in leg restraints by police officers after an alleged tantrum in class.
The staff also has video of little Jai-isha Akins punching an assistant principal, kicking and scattering objects on the floor. The child was allegedly upset because her teacher would not let her play a learning game with jellybeans.
Two training officers and two probationary officers from the St. Petersburg Police Department arrived on the scene. They put a pair of metal handcuffs on her wrists, and when she resisted, they bound her wrists with plastic cuffs.
St. Petersburg Police maintain that their manner of restraint and the arrest of the five year old was appropriate. The state attorney refused to prosecute the little girl. Jai-isha's mother has hired an attorney."
The show had the girl, her mother, & the Reverend Jesse Jackson on that evening's broadcast. Mom sat sullen and stiff--defiantly proud. Jai-isha was charming and engaging, ever the Pollyanna. The reverend praised the girl for being a cute and adorable "baby." How could the police/school brutalize her so? He wonders aloud. Mother nods, child takes issue with being called a baby. They have an exchange that goes something like this:
"What will you do next?" asks the host.
"I'm trying to get legal representation" the mother responds.
The reverend quips, "we will help get you connected to some attorney's in your area, but due to the legalities, we cannot call them for you, but I've already spoken to some on your behalf--but you'll have to call."
Translation: "I'm going to help you sue the pants off those facist bastards! In fact, we'll make 'em think it's the second coming of Johnnie Cochran!"
And this my dear readers, is exactly what's wrong with this country. You have an out of control brat of a five year old; a mother who can't muster enough inner strength to actually be a parent and give the child the spanking she so clearly and richly deserves; an activist minister who fuels the fire by perpetuating the myth that such an adorable child couldn't possibly be so horrible or that her mother couldn't possibly have any culpability in how her child turns out; and thus no one takes any responsibility for their own or Jai-isha's life. Ultimately, it ends up being the state's fault that the child was "punished". So, the state must pay and pay dearly. And by state, I mean the citizenry of St. Petersburg. So much for it takes a village! Unless, of course, the village needs to pony up the dough.
Listen, I'm not being a hard case here. For those of us with children, we've all been there. The child acts like a monster and horrifies us in public, but really! Gentle, but FIRM, UNRELENTING CONSISTENCY curtails such outbursts to one time occurrences for most people who actively parent. I mean c'mon, hitting adults? The child was unbridled. She deserved to be handcuffed. Who's in control here?
But hey! Instead of teaching the child to be a disciplined, temperate, self-controlled, responsible human being, how about teaching her to be selfish, preoccupied with her own interests above all else, and to skate by on her looks and charm since that is soooooo important. Should anyone care if this child becomes a sociopath? The citizens of St. Petersburg should because their representatives will probably promise this family the pot of gold so they'll go away. I for one hope someone stands up to them.
posted by Grisby @ 3:57 PM
4 Comments:
To me, this illuminates two problems in our society. First, schools are no longer allowed to discipline children. Second, most parents no longer discipline their children. Let me tell you, if I had behaved in such a way at school that I ended up in hand-cuffs in the back of a squad car and they called my parents to come to the school (even if I wasn't in hand-cuffs, I would want my parents to have to come to school), I would have rather taken my chances "downtown," than have to face Ma and Pa Squirrel. Growing up we always knew that if we misbehaved, we would be punished at school and that the punishment would be worse when we got home. Most children today have no concept of either of those situations.
Your right on point Grisby!
I happened to see this same segment on A Current Affair. I agree, the show made them out to be the victims, nevermind the fact that this little girl was completely out of control.
Your interpretation of what "Reverend" Jackson was "really" saying is hilarious! The "second coming" of Johnnie Cochran line...oh man, that is too funny!
Intriguing proposition. Perhaps mom should be fined for "sucking at her job," or at least have a visit payed by social services--albeit that is unlikely given the severity of abuse cases they deal with I think it may be difficult to characterize the lack of discipline as neglect and therefore worthy of intervention. Although I don't know that I would be opposed to that--at least on face-value.
Now that I've addressed that, there exist several flaws in your broader thinking on this matter.
1) It is unfair to characterize the teacher as "sucking" at her job for organizations such as the ACLU & trial lawyers have seen to it that schools are sufficiently ham-strung in their ability to discipline unruly students. As such, what power does a teacher wield to chastise? Gone are the days of rapping the knuckles with rulers, corporal punishment, or even touching a student. Pretty much the only consequence they are left with is to send said student to the pricicpal's office, which is where this ugly event happened to occur. Our litigious society, lack of responsibility has contributed to this malaise. The child's behavior is the fault of the mother and her own willfulness--plain & simple.
2) Are you really comfortable making the comparison of a dog to a five year old? I will extend some latitude on this point with the following quallifications/caveats. First, I believe that parents are the moral conscience of their children until said children are capable of rationality. As such, behavior/misbehavior is the product of training. A child left to his or her own devices will behave in a manner that is consistent of slavery to their own whimsy. A child that is out of control has been "trained" that they rule the roost and that there are no real consequences to their misbehavior. Indeed there is no such concept as misbehavior unless it is taught. Furthermore, a parent who counts to three trains the child that they do not mean business until they reach the number three. Lack of training is indeed training of another sort. It is up to the parent to train the child as to what is or is not acceptable behavior. As such simple behavioristic techniques (which happen to correspond to the method of training of young animals) is a consistent comparison. That being said, the child in question is 5 years old and has been determined to be "school ready." Meaning she has passed the muster of preliminary screenings and possesses the rationality of a typical kindegartener. Therefore, unless there is a disability, which the public has not been made aware of the dog comparison does not bear up under scrutiny. Again, this evidences a lack of training in the home environment.
Third, I would never advocate the beating of a child or animal as this implies a sense of violence that is out-of-control. That being said, corporal punisment, done correctly is not beating and this is precisely how you train a puppy to not urinate on your carpet. As such, you are correct in your assignation of blame for failure to comply. I realize statements concerning corporal punishment can be construed as controversial, but one must apply sound judgment. What is worse, letting a child play in the street so that she ends up run over and dead or to spank the child so as to teach her not to play in the street? I will leave the mechanics of appropriate corporal punishment to another time, but suffice it to say, I believe this is only appropriate for a brief and narrow window in a child's life. By age 5-6 the child should be sufficiently trained to never require a spanking again. Not to mention, other forms of punishment can and will be more effective as the child can be reasoned with and experience the natural consequences of his or her behavior/misbehavior.
Lastly, the statement 0-handcuffs is simply incorrect. The reason such an ugly event escalated to such an ugly solution is that the child's behavior has been unfetterd for too long. I can assure you such an outburst was not a new behavior to this girl's repartee.
In regards to the police, their sworn duty is protect and serve. This girl was out of control, would not reason with her teacher, the principal, or the officers. As such, they were left with physically removing her (man-handling might be a more appropriate term), risking injuries such as scratches or bites; or pursuing the safest, least disruptive, course of action by handcuffing her and removing her. I imagine this action was consistent with the officers' training.
Hopefully, Ja'isa learned there are consequences to her behavior, although I doubt it considering her mother's immediate reaction.
As always, I greatly appreciate your readership and comments and to borrow a Prager-ism "prefer clarity to agreement."
Final thought.
You raise a good point about readiness and the ability to discern between different contexts. Even so, I disagree somewhat with the conclusion.
Consider, when you were in your formative education. Did you ever have a class where you loved your teacher, she was a good, competent teacher, but yet she was constantly afflicted with one "problem" student? Wasn't she a good teacher and the student the problem; hence the parents?
That being said, I firmly hold that the parent is responsible and must bear the weight of our scrutiny, more so than the teacher, who I feel sorry for.
2) I didn't contradict myself regarding the use of corporal punishment because the caveat is that "it must be done correctly." If administered properly, the child should not require a spanking after age five. Of course, there are those who know no discipline and come from an inconsistent, self-governing environment. While corporal punishment may yet be an effective tool for that child, I prefer other consequences/methods at that age.
My comment on the ACLU is not finger point but rather to see a judiciou sharing in the culpability for the restrictions teachers face in regards to managing unruly children. 0-60 doen't apply and I continue to affirm the action.
Post a Comment
<< Home