# An Absurdity



## TSWalker (Nov 2, 2011)

"A schoolboy was excluded for breaching health and safety rules by wearing a regular rather than a clip-on tie.

Max Richmond, 13, said the clip-on ones were uncomfortable and childish. He prefered to wear a traditional tie of exactly the same design, given to him by a neighbour. He was put into educational isolation for a day, for wearing the proper tie at Colne Community School in Brightlingsea, Essex."

God willing, my son will be just as rebellious someday. :icon_smile_big:

Full article here.


----------



## Canadian (Jan 17, 2008)

I can accept that one should not wear a proper tie in woodshop. I always tucked mine in near the collar. 

I was only chastised once for wearing a tie, and that was as an Army Cadet, when the rest of the platoon didn't have them. My solution was to buy a tie for every member of he platoon (available at the surplus shop for a dollar each, minus my Cdt. discount.). 

Tom


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Classic whingeing parent's response. I think you'll find that he was put in isolation for deliberately breaking school rules, exactly that. But, it sounds so much better to say that it was for wearing the proper tie. Where I work the kids wear a clip on tie, for the same reason that policemen wear clip on ties (are they uncomfortable and childish?) to prevent injury from other students grabbing them by the tie. Also, to prevent other students doing a "peanut", where the tie is tightened by other students, such that they can't undo them. And finally, so that the tie is correctly tied, and not worn deliberately wrongly.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

If the rule is grounded in safety concerns (seriously?), I can only say that I'm glad my kids went to Catholic school in Atlanta where this was not -- and still is not -- a concern. How sad for Colne Community School.

If the rule is grounded in dress code enforcement (more understandable), then the dean should have simply explained to the young man that "[O]ur school regrets having to resort to this unfortunate rule, but because not all boys are as mature as you are, we require and appreciate your cooperation."

In either case, it seems rather silly to punish this upon first offence, but punishment is appropriate if insubordination becomes obstinate.

Parents should not encourage rebelliousness against proper authority, even if such authority is inevitably excercised imperfectly -- unless conscience demands. Wearing a stupid clip-on tie may be a violation of good taste, and it might even be embarrassing, but it is not a matter of conscience for a well-adjusted person.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Great, another stupid rule enforced with rigid stupidity.

Reminds me of the incident several years ago when a little girl was suspended for multiple days for bringing a keychain (decorated with the Warner Brothers Tweety-Bird character) to school. The school administrators deemed it a "weapon." No, this is not an urban myth: https://www.aclu.org/racial-justice...al-security/aclu-georgia-represents-student-s

Sometimes I think these "educators" were cheering for Dolores Umbridge.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

If I have never mentioned it before, I despise the health & safety fascists. People who are too stupid to make it through life without accidentally killing themselves with everyday objects in everyday situations are probably better off out of the gene pool. :rolleyes2:


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Mike Petrik said:


> If the rule is grounded in safety concerns (seriously?), I can only say that I'm glad my kids went to Catholic school in Atlanta where this was not -- and still is not -- a concern. How sad for Colne Community School.
> 
> If the rule is grounded in dress code enforcement (more understandable), then the dean should have simply explained to the young man that "[O]ur school regrets having to resort to this unfortunate rule, but because not all boys are as mature as you are, we require and appreciate your cooperation."
> 
> ...


He probably did have the rule explained to him; the day's internal exclusion would have been for defiance, for refusal to follow instructions, not for the incorrect tie. But that wouldn't make a good news story, would it? "Student excluded for defiance" isn't as good a line as "Student excluded for wearing proper tie".
Britain's right wing press absolutely hates state schools and teachers, and will always publish articles that show either in a bad light. If kids aren't behaving properly it is the schools' fault. If kids have rules strictly enforced upon them it is "an absurdity".


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> He probably did have the rule explained to him; the day's internal exclusion would have been for defiance, for refusal to follow instructions, not for the incorrect tie. But that wouldn't make a good news story, would it? "Student excluded for defiance" isn't as good a line as "Student excluded for wearing proper tie".
> Britain's right wing press absolutely hates state schools and teachers, and will always publish articles that show either in a bad light. If kids aren't behaving properly it is the schools' fault. If kids have rules strictly enforced upon them it is "an absurdity".


I would say the school's principal is still at fault for adopting such a bizarre measure of 'defiance'. As you say, the press are always swift to report such stories, and here the school has managed to deploy some of the essential prerequisites for a good story: 1. hasn't the head got more pressing matters to attend to?, 2. perverse punishment of an apparently blameless - or, depending on one's point of view, even commendable - victim for a non-crime, together with 3. ludicrous resort to 'health and safety' issues.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

DEfiant pupil supported by parents who have signed a school/parent agreement which includes a promise to support the school's dress code. But it is still the school's fault because the student, and parents, decide that the school rules don't apply to them. Fair enough.
As I indicated above, having a clip on tie ensures uniformity, stops kids from being grabbed by their tie, and having "peanuts" done to them. Parents sign an agreement on dress code, but because their darling doesn't like it they support his defiance. What do you suggest, a rule for the neds and a rule for the "nice kids"? A rule for compliant parents and a relaxation of the rules for pushy parents? Or a set of rules for all kids?


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

If you adopt sufficiently ridiculous and onerous rules, almost anyone can be rendered "defiant."

There are good rules and bad rules. They are all rules, but that doesn't make them good. And enforcement of bad rules may be necessary in some sense, but an instance of that is not a _good_ thing.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> DEfiant pupil supported by parents who have signed a school/parent agreement which includes a promise to support the school's dress code. But it is still the school's fault because the student, and parents, decide that the school rules don't apply to them. Fair enough.
> As I indicated above, having a clip on tie ensures uniformity, stops kids from being grabbed by their tie, and having "peanuts" done to them. Parents sign an agreement on dress code, but because their darling doesn't like it they support his defiance. What do you suggest, a rule for the neds and a rule for the "nice kids"? A rule for compliant parents and a relaxation of the rules for pushy parents? Or a set of rules for all kids?


I'm not arguing in favour of defiance per se, but a rule that in effect punishes the wearing of an ordinary tie seems more than a little perverse. That was the main point I was trying to make.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

CuffDaddy said:


> If you adopt sufficiently ridiculous and onerous rules, almost anyone can be rendered "defiant."
> 
> There are good rules and bad rules. They are all rules, but that doesn't make them good. And enforcement of bad rules may be necessary in some sense, but an instance of that is not a _good_ thing.


It was quite a good rule. KIds, from personal experience of schools without clip on ties do grab other kids ties. THey're kids. Kids get hurt by having their ties grabbed. Kids get hurt by having their ties pulled excessively tight by other kids. Kids wear their ties in a silly way to show their "individuality", thus rendering the concept of school uniform redundant, then you get newspapers complaining that kids are being allowed to wear their uniform in a scruffy way. As I've pointed out repeatedly, clip on ties obviate these things. Parents have to agree, in writing, to abide by the uniform code. If they don't like it they can go to another school. Colne in Essex has other schools. You don't sign up to the rules you agree with but not to the others, the rules are for all students. If a student refuses to follow the rule, that is their choice and they take the consequences. Of course, having parents who then go to the newspapers with half a story gets them a moment of fame. They might even get on a local television news show. Does nothing for the education of the child, in any sense, apart from teaching the child "if you break the rules that we don't like that's ok".


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Sometimes breaking a silly rule* is the only way that the rule gets bought to light and reconsidered. In fact, in America, it is not uncommon for a law that may be unconstitutional to be deliberately and publicly violated in order to generate a court case on that rule.

* Maybe it's not silly here, but I haven't heard anything that makes me think so yet. But based on another long-running thread, you and I have very different instincts when it comes to controlling behavior directly versus by proxy through instrumentalities.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Well, as I've said, if the parents don't like the rule there are other schools. Why should a school change it's rules to suit one set of parents? The rest of the parents don't seem to mind.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Maybe they do mind, but have grudgingly followed the rules. Maybe they didn't previously mind because they never thought about it, or never fully understood the rule and its enforcement. 

Sometimes people disagree with rules. That's usually the start of rules getting changed. If this rule really is as wise and reasonable as you seem inclined to think, then this will all blow over and the rule will remain unchanged. If the rule is a dumb as it seems to me, then maybe the rule will get changed. None of that will make a very interesting news story, though, so we probably won't ever know.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> Well, as I've said, if the parents don't like the rule there are other schools. Why should a school change it's rules to suit one set of parents? The rest of the parents don't seem to mind.


In its petty-fogging insistence on a trifling rule concerning choice of tie the school would be causing a monumental inconvenience to the pupil and the pupil's parents. If it is a state-funded school, its primary duty is to fulfil the educational requirements of the taxpaying public, rather than to bamboozle pupils with unnecessary rules.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Chouan said:


> It was quite a good rule. KIds, from personal experience of schools without clip on ties do grab other kids ties. THey're kids. Kids get hurt by having their ties grabbed. Kids get hurt by having their ties pulled excessively tight by other kids. Kids wear their ties in a silly way to show their "individuality", thus rendering the concept of school uniform redundant, then you get newspapers complaining that kids are being allowed to wear their uniform in a scruffy way. As I've pointed out repeatedly, clip on ties obviate these things. Parents have to agree, in writing, to abide by the uniform code. If they don't like it they can go to another school. Colne in Essex has other schools. You don't sign up to the rules you agree with but not to the others, the rules are for all students. If a student refuses to follow the rule, that is their choice and they take the consequences. Of course, having parents who then go to the newspapers with half a story gets them a moment of fame. They might even get on a local television news show. Does nothing for the education of the child, in any sense, apart from teaching the child "if you break the rules that we don't like that's ok".


I agree that defiance against rules made by lawful authority is not justifable, subject to the exception for rules that are immoral, which should be defied. A contrary understanding would mean that everyone should feel free to disobey all laws and rules with which they disagree. A simple reflection on such an understanding should make any thoughtful person shudder. This particular rule is stupid, not immoral. The safety argument is ridiculous. I suppose the school should make them wear helmets all day too.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

This thread is interesting simply for the way that it illustrates different people's level of deference to authority.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> This thread is interesting simply for the way that it illustrates different people's level of deference to authority.


Indeed. One only needs to examine the results of the Milgram experiment to realise that some people will quite literally do anything that authority figures ask of them. Conversely there are others who are obliged to obey no law but their own judgement. Down with the former and up with the latter. :icon_smile:

"Nothing is true, everything is permitted" - Hassan-i Sabbah (attributed)

.
.
.
.

.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver said:


> Indeed. One only needs to examine the results of the Milgram experiment to realise that some people will quite literally do anything that authority figures ask of them. Conversely there are others who are obliged to obey no law but their own judgement. Down with the former and up with the latter. :icon_smile:
> 
> "Nothing is true, everything is permitted" - Hassan-i Sabbah (attributed)
> 
> ...


Yes, but the lesson to be learned from the Milgram experiment is primacy of conscience; not primacy of judgement. If I think a particular stop sign in my neighborhood is stupid, that does not give me license to disregard it.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> Yes, but the lesson to be learned from the Milgram experiment is primacy of conscience; not primacy of judgement. If I think a particular stop sign in my neighborhood is stupid, that does not give me license to disregard it.


Let's get this in perspective - here the issue concerns a boy expelled from school for wearing a proper tie instead of a clip-on tie, so no one's life is at stake.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Shaver said:


> Indeed. One only needs to examine the results of the Milgram experiment to realise that some people will quite literally do anything that authority figures ask of them. Conversely there are others who are obliged to obey no law but their own judgement. Down with the former and up with the latter. :icon_smile:
> 
> "Nothing is true, everything is permitted" - Hassan-i Sabbah (attributed)
> 
> ...


Yes. Anarchic though your sentiments seem to be, I agree with you.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> Yes, but the lesson to be learned from the Milgram experiment is primacy of conscience; not primacy of judgement. If I think a particular stop sign in my neighborhood is stupid, that does not give me license to disregard it.


Not really. The conflict of conscience element is more properly expressed as the equipment which supports the experiment, it is not these reactions which are being subjected to measurement. The experiment interrogates the level of conformity exhibited by the subject and most specifically the tendency to defer agency to implied authority.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Chouan said:


> It was quite a good rule. KIds, from personal experience of schools without clip on ties do grab other kids ties. THey're kids. Kids get hurt by having their ties grabbed. Kids get hurt by having their ties pulled excessively tight by other kids. Kids wear their ties in a silly way to show their "individuality", thus rendering the concept of school uniform redundant, then you get newspapers complaining that kids are being allowed to wear their uniform in a scruffy way. As I've pointed out repeatedly, clip on ties obviate these things.


What utter codswallop. While I am a Petrik man when it comes to the defiance of authority, to suggest that this is a necessary or justifiable rule is bizarre. How did we manage before the invention of the ghastly clip on tie? This post suggests there are either discipline problems that need to be addressed or ordinary rough and tumble. Neither suggests that the tie should be outlawed!


----------



## TSWalker (Nov 2, 2011)

CuffDaddy said:


> This thread is interesting simply for the way that it illustrates different people's level of deference to authority.


Indeed, it evolved far beyond my hopes for it, though some of the early vitriol is why I've held my tongue. Back to my popcorn!


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Mike Petrik said:


> I agree that defiance against rules made by lawful authority is not justifable, subject to the exception for rules that are immoral, which should be defied.


At some point, however, does not the creation and enforcement of arbitrary or stupid rules not become immoral?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Balfour said:


> What utter codswallop. While I am a Petrik man when it comes to the defiance of authority, to suggest that this is a necessary or justifiable rule is bizarre. How did we manage before the invention of the ghastly clip on tie? This post suggests there are either discipline problems that need to be addressed or ordinary rough and tumble. Neither suggests that the tie should be outlawed!


Thanks for the support, AB, and I agree completely. I have no quarrel with the punishment itself, since I agree with Chouan that it really relates to obstinate insubordination. While one should never subordinate conscience to authority, one has a duty to inform one's conscience before rejecting authority, and the higher the authority the graver the duty. I cannot see how wearing a silly clip on tie for a dubious reason can possibly violate a conscience.

That said, the basis for the rule seems dubious to me. I simply cannot buy the safety concern. I serve as a board trustee for two high schools, chairing one, and the safety justification seems laughable to me. That said, while not very convincing, the dress code concern strikes me as at least understandable. Private school faculty do tend to spend an inordinate amount of time enforcing dress standards precisely because young students spend an inordinate amount of energy testing those standards. I can understand a school implementing a rule to diminish that issue a bit, even if I would have come out differently.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> Thanks for the support, AB, and I agree completely. I have no quarrel with the punishment itself, since I agree with Chouan that it really relates to obstinate insubordination.


I was a governor of a large state secondary school for five years here in a large town in the UK, with various East European and non-English speaking immigrant pupils, and their choice of tie came very low down indeed in our agenda, during that time.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

CuffDaddy said:


> At some point, however, does not the creation and enforcement of arbitrary or stupid rules not become immoral?


Only if they are intentionally arbitrary or stupid. If not, then they are simply mistaken. As you fully know, the wisdom of rules is often a matter of debate. Many folks believe uniforms as such are arbitrary and stupid, even oppressive. I disagree, but their arguments are not without merit. I'm sure there are families that object to the neck tie requirement of the school whose board I chair. They are free to raise the matter to me or the board, as well as the school's senior administration. If enough folks agree we would revisit the question. But we would under no circumstances tolerate a boy refusing to wear a tie untill we changed the rule.

Cuff, I don't see any way around respect for rules assuming the authority is legitimate. No one has questioned the legitimacy of the authority at Colne, just the wisdom of the rule.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Langham said:


> I was a governor of a large state secondary school for five years here in a large town in the UK, with various East European and non-English speaking immigrant pupils, and their choice of tie came very low down indeed in our agenda, during that time.


One of the time-honored strategies of Catholic schools is strict enforcement of a dress code. Young people will test limits, so best to give them an opportunity to test limits that don't really matter. This was true even in the first part of the 20th century when our schools were populated by children of eastern and southern European immigrants who spoke little or no English. The nuns knew what they were doing.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

School rules for child safety are there for very good reasons, in this case it is to prevent bullies from using the tie as something to grab and strangling other kids, as well as to stop the tie getting caught in something & throttling a child. I wish we'd had clip on ties during my schooldays. I wore a clip on tie in the police for 13 years, and was thankful for it, much more comfortable, much more practical, much safer, and of course a fixed knot that always looked good.

I agree with you on this Chouan.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> One of the time-honored strategies of Catholic schools is strict enforcement of a dress code. Young people will test limits, so best to give them an opportunity to test limits that don't really matter. This was true even in the first part of the 20th century when our schools were populated by children of eastern and southern European immigrants who spoke little or no English. The nuns knew what they were doing.


Here too the Catholic schools have a reputation for being rather more disciplinarian than most schools. The Catholic school in my home town certainly was, and it also had a quite serious problem with bullying. I'm not saying there is a connection, but there might be. On the one hand it might be argued that firm discipline was necessary to keep the troublesome kids in line; alternatively, that an excessively authoritarian regime (as in most English schools of that era, corporal punishment was the immediate response at the first hint of any misbehaviour) tended to filter down to all levels.



Earl of Ormonde said:


> School rules for child safety are there for very good reasons, in this case it is to prevent bullies from using the tie as something to grab and strangling other kids, as well as to stop the tie getting caught in something & throttling a child. I wish we'd had clip on ties during my schooldays. I wore a clip on tie in the police for 13 years, and was thankful for it, much more comfortable, much more practical, much safer, and of course a fixed knot that always looked good.
> 
> I agree with you on this Chouan.


Unfortunately bullying won't go away by enforcing the wearing of clip-on ties, there are plenty of other ways they can torment their victims. So far I have heard of no cases of children being strangled with their own tie - 'health and safety' is such a lame excuse that schools and other organisations trot out to justify almost anything they like, such as closing when there is snow lest the children fall over or throw snowballs at one another.

I can understand why the police might need to wear clip-ons.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Mike Petrik said:


> Yes, but the lesson to be learned from the Milgram experiment is primacy of conscience; not primacy of judgement. If I think a particular stop sign in my neighborhood is stupid, that does not give me license to disregard it.


Disregard?? No.

Cut it down?? YES!!

Vandalize speed and stop cameras??

Yes Yes YES!!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> Unfortunately bullying won't go away by enforcing the wearing of clip-on ties, there are plenty of other ways they can torment their victims. So far I have heard of no cases of children being strangled with their own tie - 'health and safety' is such a lame excuse that schools and other organisations trot out to justify almost anything they like, such as closing when there is snow lest the children fall over or throw snowballs at one another.
> 
> I can understand why the police might need to wear clip-ons.


Of course there are, but where a school has a tie it is an obvious "handle" for bullies to grab victims by, and one that the victim can't get away from easily. 
Schools often close through snow because of difficulty of both students and staff getting into work on unsafe roads, not because of students falling over or throwing snowballs. But of course it is easier to believe the "elf and safety" scare stories in the popular press than actually find out why a school has closed because of snow.


----------

