Sometimes the Issue Isn’t the Issue
Posted by Ted Bronson | Filed under Litigious World, Zero-Zero-Tolerance
This kid and his parents and his dog I’m sure are good people. I’m sure the superintendent has the capacity to be a good person as well. I even believe that the Human Rights Division Commissioner is probably a good person.
But the dog isn’t the damn issue here. And oddly enough, neither is the one hundred and fifty million dollar lawsuit.
The issue is that we have one — ONE — student here who is affecting the ‘learning environment’ of fifteen hundred other students, because at some point in the past, someone else probably sued about being allergic to animals.
The super can’t win for losing. If he lets the dog on campus without being forced into it, he would be held responsible if for any reason the dog EVER bit anyone, someone slipped in doggy pee or doggy doo, or claimed that they couldn’t be in any classroom the dog had been in because it made their allergies act up. If he doesn’t let the dog on campus, the parents of this ONE kid will sue the budget out of the system for a hundred years, and he will still be held responsible if any of the above happen.
But school officials think the Labrador Retriever could aggravate or serve as a distraction to students with severe allergies and would pose a danger during fire and emergency lockdown drills. Cave’s family countered that the 1,500-student school could be outfitted with air filters.
The lawsuit-happy parents say that the school should just get better air filters. They do actually let this dog into their house, right? Do they not notice that dog hair has a way of eluding even the best high powered vacuum cleaners, let alone their A/C filter?
Leaving aside for the moment that there have been some horrid comments left on the site where I found this story, there seems to be more actual data from the local coverage area. For example, the Human Rights Division Commish (dang, almost typed kommisar) is apparently brand spanking new to the job, the rulings of her Commission do not necessarily carry the weight of a court or legislative act, the kid needs the dog because he doesn’t always wear his implants, and gee darnit, some folks are really rude about their need to actually, y’know, breathe.
This is the crap I mean when I say that frivolous lawsuits create bad precedent. On the other hand, the parents of this ONE kid are totally gunning for a fight.
But, let it not be said that I offer no solutions, because I have one for this case:
Leave the damn dog at home and have an actual person who can translate speech to sign language (the dog can’t do that, can he? no? good, I’m still on safe ground here then) accompany this kid throughout his day. Make it be an education major from whatever the local university is and it would give that person a useful resume enhancement and/or course credit or work/study paycheck. That solves the problem of this ONE KID screwing with every other special snowflake’s chances of getting an education while still letting his parents get their Munchausen’s on.
Because that’s all this is: these parents want to not only make sure that poor deaf (sometimes) son knows that they wuv him vewwy mush but wants all of us to know it too; even it that means placing unreasonable demands on a school system that I’m sure struggles just to make sure that kids even come to class or that parents give a crap in the first place.
Tags: death of common sense, non-education
Help Support SimonJester.info!
March 13th, 2008
Actually, the issue is more likely that the parents spent a lot of time and effort to get that dog for the kid (and probably waited a long time as well) and just assumed that since service animals are allowed anywhere, it would not be a problem.
Now they are pissed because they did not check with the school first.
Of course, the proper action would be to petition the school board for an over ride of the principals decision, and then consider a lawsuit. I hate it when people jump the chain of command.
However, if the kid has an implant, why does he need a dog? I am pretty sure there are lots of other kids who are waiting for an implant who could use a service animal.
I can understand Ted’s argument for the principal, but service animals are trained to NOT mess inside, they tend to ignore other humans (so they are not a distraction except initially), and a person with allergies that severe would be unable to go to school at all unless there are very few families with kids at that school who have dogs at home. So unless this kid is very irresponsible with the dog (and fails to give the critter potty breaks or uses the dog to get attention and cause distractions), the principals position is shaky at best.
However, if the law regarding schools and service animals is not clear, then I can see why the principal wants a court order.
March 13th, 2008
Would you also tell David Paterson (the legally blind man about to be the next governor of New York) to leave his seeing eye dog at home?
Service dogs are significantly different from pets. They are highly trained and are “working” just like the human aide you suggest be hired to help this young man out. A full time sign language interpreter would be far more costly than a service dog too. Part of the dog’s training is handling emergencies; the Superintendent is showing his ignorance when he says the dog will pose a danger during fire drills. On the contrary, the dog is trained to get his owner to safety.
People who own dogs attend that school; dog hair travels on their clothing; ergo dog hair is already present in the school. Saying the service dog will exacerbate allergies seems disingenuous to me. Banning the service dog because one kid might be allergic is the same nonsense promulgated by the anti-nut parents who’ve banished peanut butter sandwiches from lunchboxes nationwide.
I am not a fan of “human rights commissars” (especially when they’re from Canada) but I think the ruling in this case is sensible. The school should stop being obstinate and find a way to work with this kid. The situation has escalated out of control on both sides (yes, the parents are over the top with their air filters comment). Instead of drawing lines in the sand they should work out a trial period with the promise that an objective 3rd party will evaluate the situation after a few weeks. Once the novelty of seeing the dog in class wears off (in a day or 3) it will fade into the background and everybody can go back to focusing on stuff that’s actually important.
March 13th, 2008
Chris, you cannot seriously be equating a deaf-by-choice-when-he-decides-his-implants-are-uncomfortable kid to a legally blind man who has no control over his condition. So let us just drop the premise that there is any similarity what-so-freaking-ever.
I DO know about service animals from personal experience–if you had actually read what I wrote, you would have seen that I wrote “if for any reason the dog EVER” did any of those things, as seen from the principal’s point of view—not mine. When my Dad would take the drug dog for the county out to local schools, there was almost always some jackass who wanted to pet him, or was afraid of him. The principal MUST take POSSIBILITIES into account, or our litigious society will bury him. (For the record, the county sheriff drug dog that I actually helped raise and train was a big goofy Lab when he was off duty. And I watched him nearly destroy a perp who was trying to attack his handler, even though he was never trained as an attack dog, just being protective. When I say helped train, I mean that I helped with his daily exercises and drills, not that I ever initiated any new training program.) Your assertion that a well trained dog is a help in emergency drills is also void — unless the dog has been trained on exactly what to do when the alarm goes off in every classroom that the child is likely to be in when it happens.
My point was not that the dog was an issue—hence the title of the post.
The issue is that a twisted sense of entitlement has hamstrung the school so much that a $150M lawsuit is inevitable. And that is really what we should be fighting against.
March 13th, 2008
The 150M lawsuit was thrown out.
I have deaf friends, and some of their kids have implants. The implants get infected and sometimes they *have* to come out. And I am not equating their conditions, I am equating the treatment each condition might receive in this school.
By your reply I can infer that you believe a blind kid, with his service dog, should be allowed to attend that school. Am I correct?
Assuming I am correct, that negates all the “problems that could be caused by a dog” objections.
The likelyhood of litigation would be significantly reduced if the school wasn’t being so hard-headed about this. A trial period, with proper awareness given to the students so they know how to act around the dog, will quickly prove whether or not the kid and his dog can be accommodated in the classroom.
The first commenter addressed the issue of the dog being distracted by other kids. Since your experience with a different class of service dog shows there might be problems, a trial period, closely supervised by a trainer or other responsible party, is a reasonable compromise.
March 13th, 2008
Ahh, Chris. I am sorry. You have assumed incorrectly. A blind kid shouldn’t be in this school either because the teaching of blind students requires different resources than the teaching of sighted ones. I bet a buffalo nickel that there is a school for the blind or maybe even a school within this district that is actually equipped to handle such a hypothetical child.
I’m happy that your hero just got made the governor because his boss was a dirtbag. I hope it helps promote the cause of handicapped acceptance in every walk of life. But hellsbells and chickenfeathers, it has nothing to do with THIS CASE.
I’m going to say this again: This isn’t about the damn dog.
It isn’t even about the parents and the lawsuit, whether it was dropped or not.
It is about polluting the signal.
In my very first post I said this:
That sentiment doesn’t mean I hate blind or deaf or weak or lame or any other handicapped person. It means that I am tired of having to accommodate them beyond a REASONABLE level. Far too often the above will demand not equal privilege, but SPECIAL privilege: something that it would not be reasonable to allow for a person who doesn’t share their handicap.
And time and again, the everyday joey-bag-o-donuts is the one who has to pay the bill when a governmental or court appointed “solution” winds up causing even more problems. That is why the school WANTS a court to ORDER that the dog be allowed, that way the school cannot be held accountable. THAT is the point I was making. We shouldn’t need a court order for this, because the parents shouldn’t be insisting on special treatment for their kid. They feel they are ‘entitled’ to special treatment because our society has taught them that their kid is ‘special’ not ‘handicapped.’
Truth telling time: handicapped kids need special instruction techniques or they don’t. They need special apparatus or more personal attention or helpers animal or human. Or they don’t. If they do, fine, no problem…but it doesn’t mean that the education of even ONE other kid should be the less for it. If they don’t, if they really are “just as good as everyone else” then let them go to school like everyone else, leaving Spot at home.
Teach the kid that he has to overcome his obstacles or he will be wondering why he can’t find a job that lets him bring his dog to work. Teach the kid that if he wants to be like other kids in his peergroup, he has to be a part of his peergroup. Teach the kid that there are folks out there in the world that are going to laugh at him for the rest of his life because he is different and that NOTHING anyone can do is EVER going to change that. Teach the kid that reality is a bitch sometimes, that sometimes life is pain, and that his own inner strength is the key to overcoming it or at least not letting it get to him.
You know, the lessons every parent has to teach their kids.
In case you never read it, here is my very first post on this blog. I hope that after you read it yo can understand exactly why I feel the way I do about this and other subjects, why we need to draw The Line about crap like this, and why we need to let common damn sense start being the scale our society is measured against.
March 13th, 2008
Ted, Your wrote “Ahh, Chris. I am sorry. You have assumed incorrectly. A blind kid shouldn’t be in this school either because the teaching of blind students requires different resources than the teaching of sighted ones. I bet a buffalo nickel that there is a school for the blind or maybe even a school within this district that is actually equipped to handle such a hypothetical child.”
The kid is not blind, he is deaf.
That means that if there is a fire alarm, the dog will alert him, and he will be able to see what the problem is.
The idea that a deaf student cannot go to a “normal” public school is ludicrous.
It does mean that the student better be able to read lips, etc.
It would also be a good idea for other students to learn ASL. They are at a good age for it and it is fun. Beats pig latin that we used to use to try to confuse the adults around us.
March 14th, 2008
Wow Ted, you’ve certainly got a big chip on your shoulder.
Reasonably accommodating a handicapped kid is NOT the equivalent of mandating the nanny state. For a minute there I thought we were just disagreeing about the definition of “reasonable” but Hells Bells dude, you’d be the asshole keeping me in the back row of the class because my last name starts with W (gotta follow those rules you know, can’t let the blind kid think he’s “special” and put him in the front row).
You’ve certainly made an awful lot of assumptions about this kid, his parents, and his situation.
I’m just trying to propose a potentially workable compromise for the school district to try (not that they’re obligated to listen to me) and you jump all over me. You trot out theoretical situations (the school might get sued) and then say you’d knuckle under if they got a court order. What’s wrong with trying to be reasonable without getting the lawyers involved? Isn’t that the point of your very first post; that too many lawyers and too many busybodies have spoiled the fun for everybody?
You know, we actually agree on that point. I’m no fan of the nanny state, and I am proud to say that I have achieved success on my own merits despite being handicapped. But I’ll be damned if I’ll let you tell me that I should have gone to a special school equipped for my situation just because you don’t want to be put out even one iota. Get over yourself sport, sometimes you have to accommodate people who are different; we can’t all be perfect like you.
March 14th, 2008
Jubal – Please read the post and comments. Ted knows the kid in question in the original issue is deaf, as he mentions several times. Commenter Chris brought up the blind kid option, probably because he himself is sight-impaired.
Chris – I think there’s some legitimate question as to who exactly it is here with a chip on their shoulder. The be-all and end-all of this site, and every post we make, is LIMITED GOVERNMENT, and limited interference into everyone’s lives. If you’re not getting that then we can’t really help you.
I would like to know why no one is taking this idiot school official to task for “standing the school house door” ala George Wallace. Wallace surely had an idiotic reason for doing it, but recreating that moment (however intentionally or unintentionally) over a dog is kind of hilarious.
March 14th, 2008
Gee, Chris, you are so very right. By calling me an asshole, you have made me realize that my entire outlook on life is flawed, that the entire point of this site is mean and nasty and hateful, and that I should go stick my head under a rock and eat bugs.
Umm, no.
A) never claimed to be perfect.
B) actually said ‘reasonable’ was ok
C) hate it for you that your life didn’t turn out roses and puppydogs, but it wasn’t ME that made it that way, so it seems like you are the one with the chip
D) you have yet again failed to note that I didn’t agree with the court action here, just that I thought it was a sad state of affairs that the school authorities required it just to cover their own butts
E) it was you, not I, who brought up the subject of blindness–you sir, are also noise on the channel
F) and finally, one our forum admins is actually someone who I fisked when we first “met”, so it is not impossible that you and I could reach an accord. But that would begin with you cooling your jets and not taking personally anything I say, not taking it as an attack on you or your eyesight, and for pity’s sake, just reading the post in context instead of bringing your particular chips into my living room.
March 14th, 2008
I get that this site is about limited government. I’m a big fan of that myself. It’s why I started reading you guys.
Hazel – I too would ridicule the principal for blocking the school house door. I’m also questioning his reasons for doing it.
Ted said “you have yet again failed to note that I didn’t agree with the court action here, just that I thought it was a sad state of affairs that the school authorities required it just to cover their own butts”
Uh, I did note that, perhaps not clearly enough, and I do actually agree with you on that point. If we want to talk about the multitude of regulations controlling every aspect of school district polices I’ll bet we’ll find a lot of common ground. The zero tolerance nonsense (did you read about the kid who got suspended for buying a bag of Skittles?) is just insane.
This is where I went off on a tangent:
“It means that I am tired of having to accommodate them beyond a REASONABLE level. Far too often the above will demand not equal privilege, but SPECIAL privilege: something that it would not be reasonable to allow for a person who doesn’t share their handicap.”
and
“Truth telling time: handicapped kids need special instruction techniques or they don’t. They need special apparatus or more personal attention or helpers animal or human. Or they don’t. If they do, fine, no problem…but it doesn’t mean that the education of even ONE other kid should be the less for it. If they don’t, if they really are “just as good as everyone else” then let them go to school like everyone else, leaving Spot at home.”
On the one hand, Ted asserts that he’s willing to recognize “reasonable” accommodations; so far so good. But then he says he’s not willing to permit even a minor inconvenience to one other kid in order to do it.
I admittedly took this personally, because I experienced something like it firsthand. Since it detracted from the conviviality of your blog, I apologize for that; we don’t know each from Adam and it was unfair of me to assume motives or actually imply that Ted might act in a certain way. We all have hot-button issues that we feel passionately about, accommodating handicapped children in school happens to be one of mine.
I promise to keep my more overheated rhetoric over on my own blog from now on.
…Chris
March 14th, 2008
My first visit here…
I find it very interesting that not once is the real solution even mentioned. Don’t send the kid to ANY government “school.”
Why would any parent want to subject their children to the nanny state, political indoctrination and gross lack of real education in the government “school” to start with? There are plenty of alternatives for any parent who cares about their child, let alone any who care about liberty and justice. People who understand this accept their individual responsibility to educate their children rather than insist that others take that role (and pay for it via theft from everyone else). See http://www.schoolandstate.org/home.htm for more on this.
Given the lawsuit, it would seem these particular parents do not have much of an idea what liberty and justice – or their responsibility as parents – is all about.
So, I must agree with one point. It’s not about the dog.
March 14th, 2008
>>There are plenty of alternatives for any parent who cares about their child…
Ok, now that’s just unfair!
I work full time, Ted works full time. One of us is supposed to quit our job (and therefore sell our house/cars) in order to homeschool?
I agree, the system sucks, but that’s why we’re out there trying to change it. We don’t have to tolerate this nanny-statist crap, THEY work for US, dammit!
March 14th, 2008
Forgot to add…not quitting my job and selling my house/car doesn’t mean I don’t love my kids. It means I am balancing everything else with the SECURITY that a steady income and adequate health insurance allows.
March 14th, 2008
Oh, did I forget to mention that life isn’t “fair?” Sorry about that. Please tell me what is “fair” about stealing from everyone around you to send your kids to government schools – if “fair” means anything to you?
And who said homeschooling is the only non theft alternative? I didn’t – though it’s probably the best one. There are homeschool cooperatives where parents take turns teaching and nobody has to quit their job. Did you look at that website? Tons of resources there, and lots of good articles to explain the whole thing too.
Is it difficult? You bet! Is it a sacrifice of some of the goodies you currently enjoy? Probably. Are your kids and their future worth it? Only you can say.
But millions (and growing numbers) of parents are making that effort and sacrifice daily all over the country. And those who live where the state makes this difficult or impossible are pulling up stakes and going where it IS possible.
It’s all a matter of what is really important to you in the long run. Do you really think you can make the bureaucrats and politicians work FOR you at all, let alone anytime soon? How messed up will your children be by all the statist crap and propaganda in the meantime?
No, life isn’t fair at all… especially after you have children.
March 14th, 2008
Hi Hazel,
I did read the post and the comments.
I was only commenting on the part that I quoted.
The entirety of the situation is dumb.
We have school Administrators fearful of being sued, courts that accommodate that course of action and School Boards that don’t have the intestinal fortitude to take a stand and defy that course of action.
It seems to me that a deaf student does not seriously discommode the rest of the student body enough to warrant his/her removal from the rest of the student body.
I was, gently I thought, chiding Ted for going with the Blind student analogy, to the exclusion of the actual situation. if i offended with my remarks, i apologize.
March 14th, 2008
To “Mama” – No way? Life isn’t fair? I had NO IDEA. I’m so glad you stopped by to be so very condescending. Feel free to avoid the trip next time.
Notice that you lost your argument right there by being rude. I did not even read the rest of your comments because of that. And there’s a lesson for YOU.
March 14th, 2008
Jubal – Sorry, I wasn’t getting that from your comment. No offense, I was just lost as to where you were coming from.