Wednesday, December 7, 2011

Has the spite towards sexuality gotten that far?

So last week Emanyea Lockett was suspended for two days for sexually harassing a teacher.

Did I mention that the "sexual harassment" was calling the teacher cute (well Emanyea says he said "cute" but the school is saying he said "fine")?

Oh yeah and Emanyea Lockett is 9 and in the fourth grade.

See the problem?

Now I will be the first to agree that the comment could be deemed inappropriate and there might even be a chance that Emanyea picked that term up from somewhere without fulling understanding it. In fact that's where my money lies. These days something as simple as "cute" can be emulated from just about anywhere from tv, games, music, other people, etc... But his Gaston County school deciding that it was worth a two day suspension? Thankfully the suspension was reversed but what kind of message are we sending?

Has it really gotten to that point where even the smallest hint of something that might be considered sexual is taken as such and harsh punishment is reined upon them? Take this story from a while back (also from NC). Jonathan Prevette was suspended for kissing a girl on the cheek (and supposedly the girl asked for the kiss). Again I can agree that such behavior is inappropriate in that setting even if the girl consented to the kiss. However just sending kids home isn't going to cut it.

What lesson does this teach? On the other hand explaining why such contact is inappropriate (and sneaking in talk about consent) would do these kids much more good and get them ready for when they get out into the world when they will be in situations where such contact is just fine (well assuming they are heterosexual depending on what happens here next May). Show and explain to Emanyea why calling a teacher fine is not okay. Show and explain to Jonathan why kissing the girl, even when she said she wanted him to, may be inappropriate.

Well I guess it'll set them up later for the demonization of their sexuality that is likely to come later.

2 comments:

Jim said...

Bottom line: that teacher interpreted a remark from that kid as sexual. That means she saw him a sexual. There's a name for that kind of thinking, or more properly, orientation.

There is no way she should be anywhere near children unsupervised.

Danny said...

I can kinda agree Jim. On the one hand I agree that there is a problem with interpreting every thing as sexual while on the other I can see how this particular incident could be seen as so.

I still say the kid needs a good talking to rather than suspension. Makes me wonder if even after undoing the suspension did anyone actually talk to him and let him know that such commentary is inappropriate in that setting.

-->