Mark Steyn correctly assesses that "educators" who torment little boys should be kept very far away from all children.
"This has nothing to do with weapons or safety. When these jerks punish kids for imaginary bows and arrows or a pop tarts chewed into the shape of a gun, what they are really punishing is aggressive thoughts. The aim is to browbeat the children into passive little clients of the state who can be bent to the needs of the state with the state never needing to fear resistance."
Actually, I think it is also to show parents that the school and the state own their children ("co-parents") and that parents have no right to raise their boys the way that boys have always been raised. This kind of calculated bullying uses innocent children as a proxy to intimidate the parents as well.
They want parents to just give up and let the schools do whatever they please.
That principal should be watched very carefully.
My special needs son was subjected to what I would characterize as moderately abusive behaviour at a public school in my area a number of years ago. It was our first attempt at having him in the public school system and it was an epic disaster. (Since then, we have had an outstanding experience at his current school, absolutely inspiring and wonderful...)
We promptly pulled him out of the school where the egregious episode happened because the principal defended the teacher and the assistants.
It was the only time that I was reduced to tears because of an incident at school in my son's entire life. I put it all in writing-it was all ignored and buried. But we pulled him out.
If more people fought back, or created zero enrolment at schools where the administrators have zero brains, THEY would be on the defensive.
Like Kate MacMillan of Small Dead Animals says: not showing up to riot is a failed conservative policy.
Not showing up to riot is a failed parental policy as well.
These episodes are disgusting and abusive. Parents who are passive are part of the problem as well.