Mom upset that school wouldn't let kid wear varsity letter.

Link - http://ksn.com/2015/03/26/special-needs-student-at-east-high-told-to-remove-his-letter-jacket/

I saw this posted on Fakebook. The person posting it made a big deal about how she was on the debate team in high school, but sadly her only response to my comment was based on emotional tear-jerk and ad hominem attacks. Here is what I wrote:

The article is leaving something out. It says that his mother "bought" him a letter, BUT the articles does not explicitly say who sold the letter. It implies that the school sold the letter, but it does not *say* that. That is fishy.

Did the school sell the letter? Or did his mom "go online" and buy a look-alike from somewhere? Like it or not, the answer to this question does matter. It is fundamental to what the outcome of this case should be.

If the school sold the letter, then the kid should be allowed to wear it, because such a sale would constitute permission on the school's part. However, if the school did not sell it (i.e. his mom bought it elsewhere) then the school is right and mom is wrong.

(I've always been under the impression that schools award varsity letters, rather than sell the to just anyone. Correct me if I am wrong.)

The article does not explicitly state that the school sold mom the letter; it only says that she "bought" it. That leads me to believe that mom probably "went online" or whatever, and bought a look-alike. If that's so, then mom is in the wrong, and the child should not be allowed to represent himself as a varsity athlete/participant when, in fact, he is not. Why should he be? Is "after-school basketball" a competitive sport? Is "everyone a winner" ?

The article does say the child was "recognized for participating", but again, it is vague in this regard. Who recognized him, and in what context? The principal? The gym teacher? Was the kid recognized for being good at the game, or for just being there? The article doesn't say, does it? No, it doesn't. It's fishy. Facts are being left out.

Whether or not there is a "district-wide" policy is irrelevant because in such a situation it is up to the administration to decide and set a precedent, which they have apparently done. The school board probably should establish a more official policy in this case. If they do, I would not be in favor of allowing just anyone to buy a letter. I'm against the "everyone is a winner" attitude (it is harmful) and believe that varsity letters should be earned by good performance.

Oh, and if the kid's spirit is "crushed" then it's MOM's fault for sidestepping whatever process normally awards these varsity letters and causing this mess in the first place. The whole problem never would have happened had she not done that. Put the blame where it's due - on mom's shoulders.

Conclusion: The article is leaving out important facts. Where did mom buy the letter; who sold it? I believe that mom bought a look-alike letter and that the school didn't have any part in the transaction. I believe mom is now making a stink because she's angry that the school called her on her bullshit. I believe that mom is trying to turn it into a discrimination case because she knows that she is at fault and wants to deflect blame off of herself. Unless mom can fill in these gaps, I consider my interpretation to be essentially correct.

Schools should get the fuck out of the sports business and drop this whole letter crap to begin with. Their mission should be education, not enabling social cliques that have nothing to do with academics.

I think you should have to earn the letter, special needs or not, and any resulting unhappiness for this kyd not being allowed to wear a varsity letter can rest at the feet of his moo, who caused this problem in the first place, IMO.

As for the Fakebookers protesting that this isn't fair to this boy because "but but but all the girls are wearing their boyfriends' varsity letters!!!!", then either the boyfriends, who presumably earned that letter, gave the letters to the girlfriends or let the girlfriends borrow their jackets. Nothing's stopping this special needs boy from doing the same, i.e., having a friend who also earned a letter to loan his letter to this kid. But the point is that this student is not wearing the letter he earned himself nor is his he wearing the letter/jacket of a friend who earned it and is loaning it to him, but instead his moo bought the letter.

It almost comes across too like this news station was advocating on behalf of this kyd by asking the principal and the district athletic director if policy will be changed. It could be a news station merely engaging in unbiased reporting (hahaha) by simply asking a question in order to cover all the questions their readers may have, but given how so many news people are so unashamedly biased in their reporting, I'm also getting the hint of the news station advocating on behalf of the kyd. And if they are, I wonder how they found out about this in the first place in order to go reporting it. Could it be.....the moo?

Quote
yurble
Schools should get the fuck out of the sports business and drop this whole letter crap to begin with. Their mission should be education, not enabling social cliques that have nothing to do with academics.

This gets a big atheist Amen from me!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If you can't feed your baby, then don't have a baby. And don't think maybe, if you can't feed your baby."
- The wisdom of the late Michael Jackson
"The mother of the year should be a sterilized woman with two adopted children." - Paul Ehrlich

I received a varsity letter in marching band in 9th grade. They were given out at the winter sports banquet at the end of football season, the band teacher gave me mine before class that Monday since I didn't attend the banquet. The letter was free but if I wanted to wear it I had to buy the jacket for $50 in 1991.

My guess based on my experience is moo bought the letter for bratford.

Quote
marco polo


Did the school sell the letter? Or did his mom "go online" and buy a look-alike from somewhere? Like it or not, the answer to this question does matter. It is fundamental to what the outcome of this case should be.

If the school sold the letter, then the kid should be allowed to wear it, because such a sale would constitute permission on the school's part. However, if the school did not sell it (i.e. his mom bought it elsewhere) then the school is right and mom is wrong.

(I've always been under the impression that schools award varsity letters, rather than sell the to just anyone. Correct me if I am wrong.)

I disagree.

Nobody needs any school's permission to wear virtually anything they want with a few narrow exceptions.

How hard is it to obtain a varsity letter, anyway? Hmm... well, Ebay says I can order one for less than $20


And if the kid didn't "earn it," so what? Our schools are not semi-pro sports institutions. They're supposed to be institutions of learning. If a few jocks and this dumb principal got all butthurt over a disabled kid wearing a letter, they can all go pound sand. They should stop worrying about being on a ball-throwing team and start worrying about thinking for themselves.

Quote
StudioFiftyFour

Quote
marco polo


Did the school sell the letter? Or did his mom "go online" and buy a look-alike from somewhere? Like it or not, the answer to this question does matter. It is fundamental to what the outcome of this case should be.

If the school sold the letter, then the kid should be allowed to wear it, because such a sale would constitute permission on the school's part. However, if the school did not sell it (i.e. his mom bought it elsewhere) then the school is right and mom is wrong.

(I've always been under the impression that schools award varsity letters, rather than sell the to just anyone. Correct me if I am wrong.)

I disagree.

Nobody needs any school's permission to wear virtually anything they want with a few narrow exceptions.

How hard is it to obtain a varsity letter, anyway? Hmm... well, Ebay says I can order one for less than $20


And if the kid didn't "earn it," so what? Our schools are not semi-pro sports institutions. They're supposed to be institutions of learning. If a few jocks and this dumb principal got all butthurt over a disabled kid wearing a letter, they can all go pound sand. They should stop worrying about being on a ball-throwing team and start worrying about thinking for themselves.

Varsity letters are given for more than just sports. At my school, the debate team, band, and other non-athletic things could earn them as well.

If you mean to make your argument from the standpoint of the First Amendment, there are SCOTUS decisions that might give the school grounds to try restricting the use of "official" varsity letters and whatnot, probably based on notions that unearned wearing of the letter is contrary to the school's educational mission. Mind you, I said try. I'm thinking maybe based on Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier here; the school could argue that part of the school's mission is, or should be, to teach kids that such things are earned, not simply sold or given. Allowing any random student to wear a varsity letter they didn't earn could be seen as sending a message that the athletes', musicians, debate team, math team, etc. that their efforts don't really matter.

The school might be able to make an argument based on Bethel School District v. Fraser, but I think that would be a long shot for them, at best. Bether v. Fraser seemed to deal with the specific issue of profanity/obscenity. Still, the school could argue that it's "offensive" to the "community standard" that varsity letters are earned, not given. But as I said, that really does seem like something of a stretch.

(I'm opposed to "everyone is a winner" because I think it is ultimately harmful. I think it teaches kids that effort doesn't really matter, and that things will be given for free to placate hurt feelings.)

On the other hand, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District makes it clear that students do not "leave their rights at the door." Even so, the school could argue that the "everyone is a winner" message is disruptive in that it could demoralize or offend students (again, not just athletes) by giving them the impression that their efforts/work aren't important. This also strikes me as a weak argument, but the school could still put it forth.

It would probably have to go to court, and in terms of outcome it looks like a toss-up to me, depending on who hears the case. I'm sure moo could find some attorney willing to represent her, if it came to that.

I really just think the mom is just using the issue (and her kid) to get attention. That is what it sounds like to me, although IMHO the article is flat-out sloppy journalism. It leaves out a lot of relevant details. The article also bothers me because it's making it all about the emotional tear-jerk rather than the objective facts. Crap like that is why I've lost faith in journalists, and have, in general, quit watching the news.

It seems clear that the school isn't using the kid's Down's status as a basis for anything, or else every national news network would have been all over it. (They aren't.) I think that if it were any random student, not a member of anything, the school's reaction would have been the same. I also think the news wouldn't have bothered with the story, if it were some "neurotypical" Joe. It also seems clear that the moo is using her kid's Down's status as leverage, which I think is a sleazy tactic, and also insulting to her kid. That's the bulk of my problem with what she's doing.

Just to put it out here: When I was in school, I wasn't a member of anything that awarded varsity letters, so I don't have any horse in the race in that regard. Also, if the school had used the kid's Down's status as a basis for discrimination, I would have a problem with that. (I admit I do find retarded kids' behavior annoying, but recognize that their condition isn't their fault and that they ought not be punished for it.) I like to argue things, and I expected better from the OP (on Facebook) since she was allegedly a member of her school's debate team. Her whole diatribe was essentially ad hominem, emotional, and void of any evidence of questioning. It's a sloppy approach. She is also a journalist, so I expected better of her in that regard, being biased as her friend, despite having little faith in journalism in general.

TL;DR: I think the school's stance makes sense, that the news article is muddying the waters, and that moo is just attention-whoring her kid and generally making trouble at this point. If the kid weren't retarded, I doubt we would have heard about this at all.

I earned mine in sports. Band got a letter of their own. So did academics. However all were earned.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From a bottle cap message on a Magic Hat #9 beer: Condoms Prevent Minivans
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I want to pick up a bus full of unruly kids and feed them gummi bears and crack, then turn them loose in Hobby Lobby to ransack the place. They will all be wearing T shirts that say "You Could Have Prevented This."

lol I was totally gonna post about this but I guess ya beat me to it XD
What kills me are the retired military personnel offering to send the kid uniforms and other paraphernalia.. Like ok, you got in trouble for even wearing a little Varsity letter. Let's just have you go ahead and walk around in full dress blues. That'll show those meanies!!!! If he was bullied into giving up his Varsity letter, what are people going to do to that poor kid if he's parading around in a Marine uniform??

In my county, kids were awarded varsity and junior varsity letters for being on academic teams, debate, and band as well as sports. I think choir and drama were the only ones that weren't eligible for letters (which kind of sucks, because both do compete as well).

Sorry your Down kid doesn't get the *super-cool* crap the normal kids get like honor roll and varsity letters, but thems the breaks. You played genetic roulette and lost; don't devalue the awards the other students earned or lower the bar so your snowflake can reach it. It contributes to the demotivation of students. When students work their asses off and study hard in the honor and AP classes to get top marks and are awarded, it becomes much less meaningful when the special needs kids are given the same exact reward for getting okay grades in their basic courses (and some of them had help via an aide). And honestly, what is that teaching your kid? "Don't let the world tell you you can't do anything, but you actually can't do anything, so exploit your retardation and disability to get awards that you didn't earn and walk around with an undeserved sense of accomplishment."

And again, it's more of the double standard from moos of special needs kids: they want their kids treated like everybody else, until their kids are held to the same standards as everybody else. Then special concessions and privileges should be granted.

My sister told me of one year when she was in high school near Halloween, the school held a costume contest. My sister, as well as a fair amount of the student body, went all out (the prizes were pretty good). All the awards went to the special needs kids, whose costumes were nowhere near the quality of a lot of the other students (I remember my sister's that year; it was awesome and gruesome), not to mention likely done by their parents/guardians, not themselves. Everybody felt really screwed; what was the point of going through all that effort if they stood no chance against "make the disabled kids feel good?" I guess the complaining from the student body was loud enough because the school didn't do any contests of that sort during my time there a few years later.

------------------------------------------------------------
"Why children take so long to grow? They eat and drink like pig and give nothing back. Must find way to accelerate process..."
- Dr. Yi Suchong, Bioshock

"Society does not need more children; but it does need more loved children. Quite literally, we cannot afford unloved children - but we pay heavily for them every day. There should not be the slightest communal concern when a woman elects to destroy the life of her thousandth-of-an-ounce embryo. But all society should rise up in alarm when it hears that a baby that is not wanted is about to be born."
- Garrett Hardin

"I feel like there's a message involved here somehow, but then I couldn't stop laughing at all the plotholes, like the part when North Korea has food."
- Youtube commentor referring to a North Korean cartoon.

"Reality is a bitch when it slowly crawls out of your vagina and shits in your lap."
- Reddit comment

"Bitch wants a baby, so we're gonna fuck now. #bareback"
- Cambion

Oh whatever. Abortion doctors are crimestoppers."
- Miss Hannigan

Quote
marco polo

Varsity letters are given for more than just sports. At my school, the debate team, band, and other non-athletic things could earn them as well.

If you mean to make your argument from the standpoint of the First Amendment, there are SCOTUS decisions that might give the school grounds to try restricting the use of "official" varsity letters and whatnot, probably based on notions that unearned wearing of the letter is contrary to the school's educational mission. Mind you, I said try. I'm thinking maybe based on Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier here; the school could argue that part of the school's mission is, or should be, to teach kids that such things are earned, not simply sold or given. Allowing any random student to wear a varsity letter they didn't earn could be seen as sending a message that the athletes', musicians, debate team, math team, etc. that their efforts don't really matter.

The school might be able to make an argument based on Bethel School District v. Fraser, but I think that would be a long shot for them, at best. Bether v. Fraser seemed to deal with the specific issue of profanity/obscenity. Still, the school could argue that it's "offensive" to the "community standard" that varsity letters are earned, not given. But as I said, that really does seem like something of a stretch.

(I'm opposed to "everyone is a winner" because I think it is ultimately harmful. I think it teaches kids that effort doesn't really matter, and that things will be given for free to placate hurt feelings.)

On the other hand, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District makes it clear that students do not "leave their rights at the door." Even so, the school could argue that the "everyone is a winner" message is disruptive in that it could demoralize or offend students (again, not just athletes) by giving them the impression that their efforts/work aren't important. This also strikes me as a weak argument, but the school could still put it forth.

It would probably have to go to court, and in terms of outcome it looks like a toss-up to me, depending on who hears the case. I'm sure moo could find some attorney willing to represent her, if it came to that.

I really just think the mom is just using the issue (and her kid) to get attention. That is what it sounds like to me, although IMHO the article is flat-out sloppy journalism. It leaves out a lot of relevant details. The article also bothers me because it's making it all about the emotional tear-jerk rather than the objective facts. Crap like that is why I've lost faith in journalists, and have, in general, quit watching the news.

It seems clear that the school isn't using the kid's Down's status as a basis for anything, or else every national news network would have been all over it. (They aren't.) I think that if it were any random student, not a member of anything, the school's reaction would have been the same. I also think the news wouldn't have bothered with the story, if it were some "neurotypical" Joe. It also seems clear that the moo is using her kid's Down's status as leverage, which I think is a sleazy tactic, and also insulting to her kid. That's the bulk of my problem with what she's doing.

Just to put it out here: When I was in school, I wasn't a member of anything that awarded varsity letters, so I don't have any horse in the race in that regard. Also, if the school had used the kid's Down's status as a basis for discrimination, I would have a problem with that. (I admit I do find retarded kids' behavior annoying, but recognize that their condition isn't their fault and that they ought not be punished for it.) I like to argue things, and I expected better from the OP (on Facebook) since she was allegedly a member of her school's debate team. Her whole diatribe was essentially ad hominem, emotional, and void of any evidence of questioning. It's a sloppy approach. She is also a journalist, so I expected better of her in that regard, being biased as her friend, despite having little faith in journalism in general.

TL;DR: I think the school's stance makes sense, that the news article is muddying the waters, and that moo is just attention-whoring her kid and generally making trouble at this point. If the kid weren't retarded, I doubt we would have heard about this at all.

marco,

I'm familiar with those SCOTUS cases and I think the question here is, does a disabled kid wearing a letter cause a "substantial disruption" to the school? Obviously the SCOTUS thought that black armbands did not, and speeches with sexual innuendo and controversial newspaper articles did.

And I agree with you--ALL parties in this case have their own selfish motives. The mother insists that her son be recognized as being a varsity athlete, which he is not. And the jockocracy/principal insist that they be recognized for being a special kind of citizen, which they are not. But here's the reality: No sane person is going to mistake a mentally retarded kid with the school's star quarterback or finest concert pianist, no matter what he's wearing! We see this in pro sports all the time. Lots of slovenly fans wear the jerseys of their favorite players... and yet, these couch potatoes are never mixed up with the actual players.

I'm just siding with free expression here. The SCOTUS has ruled that civilians, for example, are permitted to wear the uniforms of the military, as long as they are not using that uniform to perpetuate a phony status in order to defraud an entity. If the SCOTUS says that I can walk down the street dressed as a five-star general without actually being one, the principal CANNOT claim that I can't wear a varsity letter.

This all comes back to the earlier point, which I wholeheartedly agree: Schools need to get out of the sports business and focus on the 3 R's.

Thank God. Finally a voice for reason regarding this incident. I find it illogical to set a standard for excellence and then disregard it in order to accommodate an individual who cannot meet that standard.

We have reached the end of "fairness". We now must admit there is no real reason for doing our best because mediocrity is good enough.

In this case, why earn a letter at all? If it can be bought or given to someone when it was not earned then it is meaningless and represents nothing to anyone about anything.

I found a site taking donations to purchase a jacket with a letter for this special needs student. They had collected over $1500. One poster stated that the amount collected in excess would be used for the student's college scholarship fund. (Huh??)

What if he really, really, really wants to be a neurosurgeon? Should he be denied getting his M.D.? Well...

We live in a society on a downward spiral. We have no standards to achieve and no purpose except to make everyone happy and have warm, fuzzy feelings about how nice we are.

If the kyd likes to flap his arms and throw a drool-coated ball at his retarded peers and call it basketball, then good for him. Doesn't make him as good as the actual athletes. And don't get me wrong, I think high school sports are bullshit as much as the next person. Schools are institutions of education first and foremost and everything else is secondary, so while I also think the letter crap is meaningless, I don't like Downy-Moo's attitude of "Oh, Mommy can buy you what other people have to earn because you're a tard."

It's no different than buying a tard Girl Scout badges online and putting them on her sash while the normal girls have to earn theirs the old-fashioned way. A kyd who comes in with purchased badges will get told to leave and not come back until they remove all the fake badges. Tardley will never be as good as the normal athletes no matter how much spedball he plays, and it's not fair to the jocks, debators, baton twirlers and horn blowers who bust their asses earning their letters when some pants-shitting tard can slap the same exact letter on his jacket without having to do anything resembling what is expected of "neuro-typical" kids.

What's next? Will Downy's mommy buy him a nice Ph.D. online and cry to the media when they get into legal trouble for treating patients in their basement? Buy him a nice fake license online so he can drive and throw a tantrum when he gets caught swerving his way to Chuck E. Cheese with a bullshit ID? Pay off his professors to give him passing grades? After all, it's not faaaaaaaair that Tardley has to watch the normal kids get all these pretty jobs and cars when he can't do the same.

Tard or not, a person should have to earn something. If they're incapable of doing so, it's time to find a new, attainable goal. Maybe the school can shut up the tard wranglers by offering special letters to the speds; letters that look different than the real ones, but still sport the school's colors. Don't just hand them out like candy - make the tards earn them, but set goals the tards can reach. Some win, some don't. The "everybody is a winner" mentality is not healthy among sane or retarded kids; sometimes you do your best and your best isn't good enough. That's how things are. You don't deserve a trophy just because you tried.

Now, IF a tard is somehow good enough to play with the normal kids and earn a letter that way, then they absolutely can wear it. But not because Moo buys a letter so her widdle human wasteland doesn't have to be butthurt. Fuckin' breeders - they bitch that they want their tards treated equally in schools via mainstreaming, but a second later, they want special treatment for them. PICK ONE AND SHUT UP. It can't be both ways.

Quote

“I would definitely be willing to look at it and be sure that kids are being treated fairly,” said Lynn Rogers, USD 259 Board Member.

They are being treated fairly. Letters are a big deal to schools and students, and there is nothing unfair about holding all students to the same standards to get a letter, regardless of mental status.

Quote
jmc

Quote
yurble
Schools should get the fuck out of the sports business and drop this whole letter crap to begin with. Their mission should be education, not enabling social cliques that have nothing to do with academics.

This gets a big atheist Amen from me!

I'll join in on your Atheist Amen!

Conversely - your avi + brain washing compel me to post this -

GO BLUE!



Uni sports may be a slightly different animal. But HS sports feed into this all ~

The letter isn't even really the point. It's normal that a person wants to fit in with peers, especially at a younger age. I can understand why a mentally challenged teenager might think that by acquiring the outward symbols of belonging (the letter), the desired result will be achieved. Everyone of normal intelligence knows this is not the case. In buying the letter, mommy is just setting the kid up for disappointment. And that's basically going to be his entire life: a series of disappointments because he will never be able to do what his peers do, and he's smart enough to recognize that he's on the outside of whatever group forms.

I do think the school's being petty. Any adult ought to realize that the letter isn't worth a damn thing after high school, so it's a largely meaningless gesture to let the kid have one. (In fact, some of their high school "stars" would benefit from learning that nobody gives a fuck about their high school achievements once they've passed through those doors, and so they'd do well to focus on the things which are actually going to have an impact on their future success in life. Too bad smalltown America is intent on giving the easily influenced a confused idea of success. Instead of lauding sports achievement, they should have an assembly where 30-, 40- and 50-year old high school athletes talk about their glory years and what a comedown the rest of life has been.)

What I don't understand (as stated above) is why we let supposed academic institutions contribute to the creation of cliques based on sports and other non-academic activities. I have no doubt that these groups would form whether the letters were awarded or not, and this kid would not be popular no matter what, but surely it isn't the role of academic institutions to further the social cliques which are already in place among teenagers? You can't make people "be nice" and "play with unpopular kids" but you can damn well stop being the ringleader of this activity.

Everyone in this whole drama is acting like a brat.