[Ansteorra] just read the link

[Michael Silverhands]

On Dec 18, 2006, at 2:31 PM, Mahee wrote:

> Please take the idea of this picture to its extreme. Do not stop  
> with the picture of just this student with two swords and chainmaille.
>
>   let anyone can wear anything...what can you imagine.
>   let anyone have weapons in their picture
>

Do they have a hockey team? Do they show any kids with hockey sticks?  
(But wait, those are sports equipment.) What about kids who fence  
competitively? Do they show them with their swords? (But wait, those  
are sports equipment, too. Different sport, different equipment.)  
What about kids in a play doing theatrical stage fencing? (But wait,  
those are theatrical props, that's not the same thing as this  
picture.) Isn't it the same? Why isn't it?

Where is the line?

For that matter, imagine a photo of a kid standing on a stage in the  
middle of a play such as King Lear, sporting chainmaille and two  
swords? If you put that photo side-by-side with the one in question,  
how would you tell that one is ok to appear in the yearbook, and the  
other one is not?

Where is the logic?

>
>   How stupid could someone get? Where could it go? What could the  
> reprecutions in the school be? ... Sadly we can not stop people  
> from doing stupid things.
>
>   servant to a group of 8th grade students,
>   mahee
>

Like Maria and others who have spoken, you make some good points, Mahee.

However, your argument still begs the central issue: the principal  
cited a "no weapons in school" rule to forbid a photo (that included  
Medieval weapons) from appearing in the yearbook. Except that no  
weapons were in the school, so the "no weapons in school" rule seems  
to not apply.

And except that he didn't forbid the photo from appearing in the  
yearbook -- just not *for free*.

So we have not one, but *two* stupid (on the face of them) decisions  
here.

Oh, and except that *other* images of weapons *do* appear in the  
yearbook: notably the school mascot; and possibly images of a school  
play that includes a fencing scene, or the school martial arts team,  
or boxing team, or ROTC drill team, or other easily imagined display  
of weapons (no evidence to say that's the case, but it's certainly  
possible).

So make that *three* stupid decisions.

If the school wants to exert editorial supervision over what appears  
in the yearbook (whether photos or text), that's probably a good  
idea. To borrow your reasoning above, "what if you let students  
*print* anything... what can you imagine?"

If the principal wants to exercise editorial control over the  
yearbook, that's fine -- although I would personally be happier if  
there were an editorial committee involved, and if there were a  
process of review and appeal. (Even though in reality the principal  
is king in his school, as anyone who's been around a school district  
knows.) But at least be honest about it, and don't hide behind a rule  
that arguably doesn't apply, and isn't being applied evenly in any  
case. That's just stupid, and invites the very kind of controversy  
that this incident has done.

To come back to the original point, though: this is *not* about "no  
weapons in schools". It isn't even about "protecting students". It's  
about stupidity in motion (on the part of the administration).

Respectfully,
Michael