Yo, doofus

[conuly]

I'm actually talking to you. When I said that "they" could've done this or that* to prevent your middle school teacher from molesting one of your classmates, I didn't mean you could've done this. I meant your school. Obviously, because who the hell refers to somebody as "they" when addressing them!? Putting aside the fact that, you are correct, 12 year olds do not have the power to require their teachers to do anything - you're not the they I'm talking about! If I meant you, I'd've said you.

* Specifically, given the described scenario, they could've pre-emptively had the same rule many schools have today barring teachers from going off-site alone with students. Either you have multiple adults, or you have multiple students, but you don't go on one-on-one excursions off-campus. This won't stop anybody bound and determined to cause harm, but it'll prevent them from hiding so well in the process.

Comments

[zesty_pinto]

Douche canoes on the internet are so easy to offend yet strangely obsessed with painting scenarios with really wide brushes when it comes to receiving feedback.

[conuly]

Oh, it gets "better".

Just a few days ago the forum we're both on was talking about Andy Savage, the pastor who admitted (after the SoL ran out, of course) to sexual assault and got a standing ovation.

And he commented that since a blow job is "technically" sodomy, we could call him Sodomite Andy Savage. To which I said, hey, let's not use their homophobic slurs for funzies. If we want to call him out every time we talk about him, why not call him Rapist, which he is.

Seventeen comments later he's still going "It's not a homophobic slur!"

Well, if it's not, why the hell are you giggling so much at your own cleverness that you can "technically" call him one!? Why are you so bound and determined that this is the best, most insulting word for him, not any of the others (some of which he suggested he uses for other people, like Odious or Disgusting)?

I'm not sure I want to block him just yet, because these are the arguments I don't get anxiety over but....

[wpadmirer]

ARRGH. That's just fucking common sense!

[gwydion]

We were advised to prop the door open if there was only one student in the classroom reguardless of gender, unless we were in the classrooms designed with the interior wall as a big window. It's a good rule just generally for a person with authority meeting alone with someone over whom they might have power.

[conuly]

And it protects both parties.

[conuly]

Common sense and the English language.

[pipilj]

There have been quite a few molestation cases reported in India of late. The most common is in the school bus where the driver molest a young child sometimes kids as young as 6. It has become compulsory for buses to have a female attendant in every bus. Off site visits are frowned on unless it is an excursuion. Most molestation sadly happen in the campus and kids are often to scared to complain

[conuly]

Most molestation sadly happen in the campus

Well, kids are most likely to be on the campus, so. Poor kids.

[gwydion]

That was actually the selling point. :)

Obviously it won't work for psychiatry and a few other exceptions, but it should be standard for business, etc..

The kids are safer if the door's open and it means it makes false accusations less likely. Everybody wins. It's gender neutral; everybody gets treated the same.

Long term, I hope new schools keep getting built on the pod model with a collection of classrooms around a communal work area with that wall of glass. It was wonderful. I could monitor all my kids at once when they were spread out for projects, and in a medical or other emergency, you have more adults which is for the win. You can herd the kids away from a fight, meltdown, or seisure and not have to worry they are running amok elsewhere. All this plus it really makes it impossible for someone to truly be alone with a kid in a classroom without someone seeing.

Safer for them; safer for me; so much better for teaching.