Public Displays of Affection

[Anonymous]

Not too long ago a reporter wrote a story that included a girl at a wwasp program being disciplined for "hugging" another student.   Spots, as I recall, made a big deal out of this, as did a lot of others.  Most public school districts in our country have this "rule" (Public Display of Affection) and "consequences" if it is broken. They don't care if it is an innocent, joyful hug or a sexual hug.  There is no line drawn, in most cases, and if students hug, they are placed in detention or suspended.

If this girl received consequences at a wwasp program for hugging, then there was a reason for it.  They are taught acceptable ways to hug and unacceptable ways to hug...believe me, there are many unacceptable ways.  The reporter failed to mention "why" she received the consequence, so I won't go into assuming.

Check your local school district's Code of Conduct or call and see.  You may be surprised to know this is a common rule.

[Deborah]

And can you give some examples of acceptable and unacceptable ways to hug, within WWASP that is?

I'm thinking about the young woman who empathetically hugged another who was sad about not being able to go home for Thanksgiving, if I recall....and wondering what an "unacceptable hug" might look like in that situation.

Perhaps it was unacceptable because it might have allowed the young woman, for a minute, to feel human, feel loved, feel understood. That might contradict and undo the messages and intent of the program- for her to feel unloved, unworthy, alone and isolated.  

The only reference to this in the Code of Conduct manual under Campus Management Offense states:
Engaging in inappropriate physical or sexual conduct disruptive to other students or the school environment.

I suppose a empathetic hug, MIGHT fall into that catagory. Even on the outside chance that they had an irrational teacher interpreting this rule, a detention or eventual expulsion (for repeated offenses) is a more humane punishment than OP.

It's a sad day when empathetic hugs are classified as Public Displays of Affection and "consequences" are issued. Are you intentionally trying to confuse the issue?

You can bet mom, back at home, was receiving many hugs (physical and verbal) from all her supporters. Or perhaps, she didn't miss her daughter at all. Which might it have been?
Deborah

[ This Message was edited by: Deborah on 2003-08-08 05:00 ]

[scottT]

One of the highlights of the old 50's movie "Sunset Boulevard",  was the scene in which the Gloria Swanson character says "Tell Mr. De Mille  that I'm ready for my close-up".  

The power of this phrase was that (rather than simply being told "this person is crazy")  audience could draw its own conclusion that the has-been actress is operating under an insane delusion of grandeur.   The phrase has become sort of a popculture catchphrase for mental disturbance.

The hugging incident was described in the May 9th New York Times article.  What astonished me was the BBS reaction.  Although the article identified the girl as someone who counted herself as a success,  the vehement reaction of the mother and daughter involved was that they had been misquoted.  Not misquoted in the sense that that she hadn't  been dropped 2 or 3 levels (that was true),  but rather,  that Mr. Weiner didn't make it clear that she really DESERVED to be dropped back to level one!!

Lets  see now, comfort a friend (normally considered a good quality),  get punished.  Get punished,  stay 2-3  more months.  2 or 3 more months,  pay $4-6,000 more. Who would agree with such a rule?  Who would voluntarily support it?

If I (or others) spent hours saying "this is crazy" (and lord knows, we have) it could be dismissed as the work of a small group of  malcontents (and lord knows, it has).  But here is an example of a person who, by their word and deed says, in effect,  "hugging a disconsolate friend is wrong.  I DESERVED to be punished.  I DESERVE to pay $6,000 for for this terrible act"

Folks,  you can draw your own conclusions.

[ This Message was edited by: scottT on 2003-08-08 05:53 ]

[ This Message was edited by: scottT on 2003-08-08 05:55 ]

[FaceKhan]

First of all public schools with those rules often find themselves in hot water for trying to enforce them. And those rules are almost never applied to hugs between girls.

Secondly it is the not the responsibility of the Nytimes to report what that girl thinks she deserved in relation to the hug only what happened. She hugged a crying girl to comfort her and was punished for it by being set back and kept at wwasp longer, a high price to pay.

I think the article would have been better if they had included that the girl thought she deserved to be set back. It would have made the point about brainwashing a lot clearer. It certainly would not have helped the case for her "success" at wwasp, it just shows how much they twisted her up.

I just watched the movie "Equilibrium", a 1984 or Farenheit 451 type world where all emotion is medicated away and all items of art, music, books are burned and even the view from your home is blocked out. Those who do not take their medication or show any kind of emotion are killed.
Here is an interesting line from the movie.

"Your Sorry? You don't even know the meaning. Its just a vestigial word for an emotion you have never felt."







 




_________________
From this place we will deliver notice to the parliaments of conquerors, that a line has been drawn against the darkness and we will hold that line no matter the cost.

[ This Message was edited by: FaceKhan on 2003-08-08 11:00 ]