Softball coach claims reverse discrimination after ousting because school insisted on hiring a woman
Maybe I'm old school, but I believe that the only reason why a coach should be fired is based on their win-loss record, not that you just want to have a woman coach on your staff. Call me a Neanderthal if you wanna, but that's just me.
Senior denied diploma because of too much cheering
Superintendent stands by decision
Superintendent refuses to give a student his diploma because there was too much cheering after his name. Instead, he gets a letter from the principal stating that he cannot get his diploma until he and/or his family complete a combined 20 hours of community service.
Senior denied diploma because of too much cheering
Superintendent stands by decision
Superintendent refuses to give a student his diploma because there was too much cheering after his name. Instead, he gets a letter from the principal stating that he cannot get his diploma until he and/or his family complete a combined 20 hours of community service.
Good grief. He should have graduated from my high school - our ceremony was in the school basketball gym (seats 6,000 people), with spectators wandering the aisles, talking, laughing, throughout the ceremony. I always half expected to see peanut vendors working the crowd. I don't think anyone would have even noticed a little cheering.
A popular young man at our high school faced something somewhat similar. Students can do skits at a popular annual revue, and he asked ahead of time whether he could perform the dance-off scene from Zoolander, and was given permission. So of course he goes on stage to the tune of Michael Jackson's Beat It and pulls his underwear out of his pants, just like in the movie.
Of course, he is threatened with suspension (for a longer time period than a student who physically assaulted another student was given, no less!), because in the school administrator's mind, he was simulating masturbation (because the administrator did not realize that the song Beat It means "get lost," he somehow thought Beat It meant, you know, beat "it.") The fact that he asked for permission ahead of time and was granted it as well carried no weight at all, since "he should have known better."
Fortunately, many parents rallied around him (they had seen the performance too and were familiar with the movie and song), and his own parents threatened legal action along with an assertive letter-writing campaign to all the local papers, and his suspension was turned into detention.
An interesting, but only slightly analogous situation. Good thing his parents had a lawyer. Can't be a jerky high school kid these days without a lawyer. It does sound like Miss Plimsol over reacted though.
Rather than posting the story, let's let the picture to the talking here:
![]()
Mother of the year.
No kidding! One kid physically assaults another and gets two days suspension; one kid dances to Beat It and is threatened with a one-week suspension? Odd priorities to say the least!
These two things are so different as to be totally incomparable. That policy is totally outrageous, completely unreasonable, and obviously illegal. Also, obviously NOT a company policy. It MIGHT have been a store policy of that particular B&N, but I smell someone trying to cover their own arse.They may have been a bit over-zealous here, yet I can have some sympathy for the store clerk given the wacky times we live in...several years ago we won a trip to Disney World as a prize, and at the pool by our hotel there was an older male, on his own, watching the young children splash around through the telephoto lens on his camera several times (i.e., every time we brought the kids there). I thought it was really creepy.
A book store, of course, is quite different, and even pedophiles who watch from afar and don't touch are not breaking any laws.
Yes, of course, but what does that have to do with the young man who was punished because his family acted up at commencement?
arbitrary and capricious school administrators showing no sense of context or priority, overzealously being tyrants with no proportion nor humanity?
These two things are so different as to be totally incomparable. That policy is totally outrageous, completely unreasonable, and obviously illegal. Also, obviously NOT a company policy. It MIGHT have been a store policy of that particular B&N, but I smell someone trying to cover their own arse.
A few years ago, a friend of mine, who was quite young at the time, for being the mother of 2, had a bunch of tattoos and piercing was stopped by mall security after a "tip" from another mall patron, for suspicion of kidnapping her children when she left the mall playground with them. This is a fairly upscale mall, (one I hate going to because people there are really snobbish and obnoxious. Cherry Creek for those from Denver) and some woman just assumed that she could not possibly be those kids' mother. It's a LOT more understandable than the idiot kicking someone out of a bookstore for looking at books, but outrageous nevertheless.
Every time someone gets angry about how awful and PC the world is, I want to remind them that this kind of xenophobic BS still goes on daily. Pure ignorance.