Reply #31: A suspension is the wrong course of action. [View All]

[Trillo]

It looks like the school is saying don't follow your dad, while the law says parents must be financially responsible for the kid until they're 18. This usually means the kid lives with mom and dad. Do progressives want to go the route of splitting children against their parents when the law gives the parents legal control over their children? This puts the child in a no-win situation of the state leveraging punishment against the parents through the child.

I've said this before, and will say it again, if an expulsion, suspension, whatever you want to call a permanent or temporary kicking out is executed by officials, then the child needs to be released from further compulsory education.

That also fixes the fighting problem.

The danger with any expulsion or suspension is that it teaches the correct way to handle one's problems is to cast them out of one's physical presence, and the corollary lesson which eventually sinks in, out of one's mind. In other words, it teaches denial.

Quite effectively, I might add, particularly when combined with the lesson that we kick you out but you still must attend. What greater push-pull denial is there?

Do progressives want neo-conservatives and potential future neo-conservatives to be in denial? The corollary question: Is neo-conservatism a state of denial? If so, then could it not be changed by eliminating those conditions that teach denial?