No-Touching Policy at Va. School

We're all pretty used to such things as sexual harassment rules at schools. We've heard of first graders being disciplined for kissing. We know that fighting is usually an offense worthy of expulsion, but what about a school that disallows all touching?

Teachers have broad discretionary powers in terms of enforcement and usually only repeat offenders get punished, but this is pretty severe.

What brought this on?

Well, escalation of poking into fighting, gang handshakes, and unwanted hugs that make females feel uncomfortable.

A rule against physical contact at Kilmer Middle School, about 10 miles west of Washington, is so strict that students can be sent to the principal's office for hugging, holding hands or even high-fiving.

Unlike some schools, which ban fighting or inappropriate touching, Kilmer Middle School bans all touching.

Hernandez said the no-touching rule is meant to ensure that students are comfortable and that crowded hallways and lunchrooms stay safe. She said school officials are allowed to use their judgment in enforcing the rule. Typically, only repeat offenders are reprimanded.

www.signonsandiego.com

This is pretty pathetic, but I understand why the school feels this is necessary.

Yes, the school should be teaching appropriate social skills, but by the time the school gets the kids, they are already well on the road to antisocial behavior.

Kids don't respect school authority and parents are too quick blame the teachers for the behavior of their children.

It's really an outrage, but the responsibility for such measures is evenly spread throughout our society and I fear that it is too late and that such measures will become the norm in time.


[edit on 2007/6/18 by GradyPhilpott]

Well this is extreme feminism again. What psychological impact will this have on kids in single parent families who already have to negotiate a minefield of issues trying to reconcile lack of affection from the absentee parent ?

Then they go to school and get the message reinforced that all display of affection is something evil.

Same time society has no issue with sexually exploitative content on TV and movies, sending mixed or confused signals to kids.

Hugs and pats on the shoulder are natural signs of affection. Ban and outlaw them and we may aswell all live in a padded cell because this is extreme over reaction to problem which can be addressed in other more sensible ways.

Very extreme move.
Too bad. I mean humans are supposed to have physical contact.
Like sy.gunson mentioned. a hug, or a pat on the back, a handshake.
It's part of normal social interaction.
These kids will be really confused, later in life.
And, they may not learn the difference between "bad" touching, and acceptable touching.

I can sort of see why a school would partially implement a no touching policy. School is not a place to do any sort of gang related activity, or a place you should be kissing your girlfriend/boyfriend. It is a place of learning. However, to ban all forms of touching is almost non-constitutional. Almost. How do they expect our future adults to introduce themselves to each other? What about helping a fellow human cope with stress?Depression?


Most people want to help each other. It's just human nature. If I was in school and a friend looked like they needed a hug, I would. There is a huge difference in "bad" touching and "good" touching. They went a bit overboard with this and definately need to revise.


What happened to the freedoms Americans are supposed to have?

This is another example of a school overreacting and banning everything in sight. This is not a feminist thing, it said they were very concerned about gang incidents and fighting as well. As far as girls being touched when they don't want it, the girls should be taught to politely say no. How will they learn to deal with unwanted advances when they're adults?

This is just another stupid policy that seem to be standard in our society today.

Originally posted by sy.gunson
Well this is extreme feminism again.

I don't even understand what you mean by this... Could you explain?

I agree with forestlady. This is a dangerous practice (blanket banning) that takes away the opportunity for kids to learn a valuable lesson. That being how to say No. It also removes the opportunity for people to report inappropriate behavior.

Schools are WHACK today. I think the biggest lesson they're trying to teach is "You can't take care of yourself, so let us do it for you." :shk:

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Schools are WHACK today. I think the biggest lesson they're trying to teach is "You can't take care of yourself, so let us do it for you." :shk:

The problem isn't only in schools. The government feels the need to "protect" us from ourselves everyday. Just think about how bad censorship is on T.V. and radio. Heaven forbid someone curses and a kid hears it. Apparently parents are not supposed to raise kids at all. Just let the government do it and everything will be fine. I, for one, would like to be able to make my own decisions. Wouldn't you?

It is not extreme feminism its extreme stupidity and a school board afraid of law suits brought by crazed parents who are apparently afraid of life itself.

I was in the checkout line of the grocery recently and this woman was in front of me with maybe a 3 year old girl who kept making funny faces at me, so I started making funny faces back. About as innocent as could be. The woman saw it and totally freaked out, started yelling at the kid and yelling at me and making a total scene. The management came running up with security and after a few minutes realized who the loon was and it wasn't me. They took the still hysterical woman off to another check out line and profusely apologized to me.

If I had been a child molester, I would have had to knock her down, unbuckle the child from the cart and somehow make it out of a busy supermarket with her. Me... overweight with a cane for a bad knee and unable to run.

I felt really bad for the kid, I was just trying to make her smile and giggle. I can only imagine what kind of upbringing that kid is having. There are many forms of abuse and one is to teach a child fear.

It is parents like that one that cause school boards to enact laws like this one. Pathetic, real pathetic.

I just thought of another reason this policy isn't going to last.

What about when these middle schoolers play some kind of sport? Football, Basketball, etc. Most sports involve at least a little physical contact. You can't just lift the rules part of the time. They should have banned gang handshakes, or all PDA. Most schools I know of already have something like that implemented anyway.


Perhaps they just going to pick and choose when to implement and when not to.

Sick.
Touching is necessary to develop a relatively mentally stable person, along with general communication.
This is just disgusting nonsense.
I went to school in some pretty strict Catholic joints, and while PDA was a punishable offense, I don't think any of the administrators would even consider banning touching altogether.
Why don't they ban sight too? Or hearing? Or tasting? Or smelling? They're all just as important, nor should they be considered some sort of privilege...these things are our rights.

I don't even understand what you mean by this... Could you explain?

It is a typically paranoid female reaction to assume all touching is somehow sexual in nature.

It is typically female reaction to over react to problems with hysteria.

In New Zealand where we are ruled by a gay lesbian female Prime minister we have these same stupid laws.

Children on airliners are not allowed to sit next to men.

Single mothers drive fathers out of children's lives by making false accusations that fathers are molesting their kids.

Everywhere in society men are being vilified and excluded by feminist hysteria.

Male teachers have been virtually driven from class rooms by a hysteria that all men are sex offenders. In New Zealand schools teachers are not allowed to comfort distressed children with hugs.

That is what you are outlawing you are outlawing natural human affection and replacing it with a cold impersonal dogma.

Well since NZ has trodden down the path which Virginia's schools are now headed, I can tell you that the feminist social engineering experiment in NZ is unravelling big time.

Kids now commit brutal crimes, murder muggings and sex offences because they lack empathy and they lack a sense of boundaries to their behaviour which was a role which fathers used to play in society.

In a generation's time Benevolent Heritic when these well intentioned medlings have screwed up society will you line up to say you take responsibility for the mistake ?

Originally posted by sy.gunson
It is a typically paranoid female reaction to assume all touching is somehow sexual in nature.

It is typically female reaction to over react to problems with hysteria.

Sounds like you have the typical female all figured out. And it sounds like you hate her.

In a generation's time Benevolent Heritic when these well intentioned medlings have screwed up society will you line up to say you take responsibility for the mistake ?

Absolutely not. Did you read the rest of my post? I am totally against this "no touching" policy. Maybe I'm not your "typical female", but your (over)reaction to my simple request for clarity makes me wonder why you protest so vehemently against the "typical female" (whatever that is).

I was curious why you laid this on females. Now I know. Thanks.

Sy Gunson,

It sounds to me like you hate women in general. So far every poster who happens to be a woman including me is totally against this no touching policy. Maybe you need to stop generalizing women and claiming this stupid policy is typical of women; that makes about as much sense as me saying all men beat their wives because my ex did. Fact is most men are pretty darn nice and most women are as well.

Galloping hordes

In 2001 son was beaten repeatedly by his mother as a baby, He received a black eye at 18 months and femminist social workers refused to investigate.

It took almost a year to force an investigation by complaining. During that time my son kept coming to me covered in bruises. i kept complaining. Several times i actually witnessed my son being assaulted. Police would not investigate because femminist social workers told the police the situation was under control and they didn't believe there was any truth to the claims.

Then on 3 October 2002 I witnessed him being hit three times by his mother. The next morning I came to dress my son. His legs were covered in welts and bruises. I made an immediate notification to child welfare. On 8 October they visited my Ex. She admitted hitting him.

Then Child welfare issued a report saying they had no concerns for my son's welfare and that only real issue which concerned them was the constant harrassment of my notifications. On the basis of that feminist social worker's report, the Court has refused to consider any evidence of child abuse.

The family court where the judge is an elderly gay batchelor with no insight into raising children refuses to listen to any evidence of child abuse on the basis of gender.

I was not allowed access to my son's file until two months ago. I find that right up until february 2007, child welfare have been concealing acts of psychological cruelty to my son.

Am I bitter ?

Damn right I am.

Iam bitter at people who exclude fathers from children's lives upon an assumption that all men are evil and the further assumption that mothers can do no wrong.

This policy at Virginia schools is not unfamilar to me. It is the same type of feminist PC bull which pervades my country.

I have no quarrell with women in general. I believe in equality of rights for women. What I despise is the anti male propaganda which you likely support.

I'm sorry about your son's experience.

Originally posted by sy.gunson
... an assumption that all men are evil and the further assumption that mothers can do no wrong.

But assumptions that feminists are evil are ok, apparently.

What I despise is the anti male propaganda which you likely support.

But again, anti-feminist propaganda is fine and dandy. As are assumptions that being female means a person supports anti-male propaganda. :shk:

Seems, Mr. gunson, that you play the very game you profess to hate... Hmmm... I think I better call the double standards patrol. Oh, never mind, I'm already here! Just remember, Mr. gunson, that for every feminist you automatically judge and despise, there are probably 10 men who are touching little girls inappropriately or worse.

Again, I don't agree with this policy, but if it weren't for the plethora of deviant males disgracing and ruining little girls, policies like this wouldn't be needed. So, before you cast your stones at all the feminists, you should be prepared to cast them at all the men as well. Because the overwhelming majority of people who abuse children are men. Bigotry against feminists is every bit as bad as bigotry against men.



[edit on 21-6-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]

Utterly ridiculous PC nonsense. Just like that university policy, where, for each successive movement of touch, the word "yes" must be uttered beforehand. I wish I could remember which university made a farce of this by taking it to an extreme. What are we doing to ourselves?

Mr. Gunson,

I'm deeply sorry for your son's pain and for the truly rotten way you were treated. Your ex should be in prison and those that didn't do their jobs and protect this innocent little boy should face consequences for their actions as well.

However, when you who do not know me claims to know what agenda I support I'm calling BS. Do I support an anti-man agenda? Why in the world would I do that? That is just plain stupid and you telling me I do is also just plain stupid. It seems to me that you are the one who has the anti-woman agenda and are labeling half of the world's population because of your bad experience.

The fact is men exploit children far more often then women do. Look it up the facts are there to see. Even so I believe that this fear is taken to extreme levels a prime example would be Grover's experience in the store that falls under the category of stupid paranoid parent.

You do however, seen to have a double standard; you might want to think about that. I hope you and your son are doing well and are happy. I'm hoping the pic on your avatar is you and your son being together now. By the way just so you know my daughter is going to visit her father next month; she's in college and working now so neither one of us gets to see her as often as we would like. Even though you will likely not believe me most custodial parents don't interfere with the other parent's time. Whatever my issues with her father are they aren't hers and I've never made them her's.

Sy.Gunson.

I can't begin to express my anger at what you've gone through trying to get protection for your son. I truely am sorry.

But to accuse all women of this is the height of foolishness. Gallopinghordes, whom I've known all my life, she's my sister, no more hates all males than you do. Benevolent Heretic, is one of the nicest people I've met here on ATS, I've conversed with her on many a topic, some we've agreed on, others we've disagreed rather violently. If she hated all males of the speicies ( of which I am one ), I think it would have shown through at some point.

You are letting your horrible experiance color your attitudes.

Back on topic...

This rule in Virginia is PC folly run amuk. How are kids supposed to learn socialisation skills without some form of touching? I can't think of a way to do it...