Monday, December 04, 2006

From the "So let me get this straight" Department

A school principal in New Mexico takes one of his students to a barbershop to alter a haircut with a possible gang symbol shaved into the back of the student's head, and now the principal is in legal trouble:
[The student's] father, Fidel Maldonado, Sr., said Thursday that he's talked with an attorney and planned to speak with APS Superintendent Beth Everitt on Friday.

"For him to take my son and take him out of school without my consent, against his own will, is wrong," said the elder Maldonado.
I will freely admit that what the principal did was not a good career move, but I couldn't help but notice something. If the student was a schoolgirl in California seeking an abortion, the voters of our once great state recently said that doing that without parental consent is a-ok. Changing a haircut? For shame! Getting an abortion? Go for it kid!

What a screwed up world we inhabit....

Good Day to You, Sir

8 comments:

George said...

Chances are the dad is the one who cut the kid's hair! Prediction: Someday the American street will be filled with gang members ala Latin America. Why? Because Americans, especially middle-class ones, have no clue how much the gang culture has invaded their sons' minds and hearts.

Anonymous said...

Seems to me that the father was more upset about his child being taken off campus without his consent or knowledge than he was about the haircut.

How is that remotely the same as the abortion issue? Which by the way, I also think is WRONG.

Polski3 said...

Guess Dad would be happier burying his son, tragically gunned down in a drive by shooting by a gang who is rival or hates anyone with such a symbol.......

However, Jerk father is in the wrong on this one.....Principal has responsibility to ensure peace and learning environment at his school. IF I had been principal, I'd have called the father and requested he remove his son from school as a safety measure.....(and, of course, depending on what school policy and state law is regarding such things.)

Chanman said...

Anonymous,
I am floored that you don't see the connection here. The principal is in hot water for not getting parental consent for a procedure done on a minor; in this case a mere haircut.

At the same time, in California, minors get abortions every day without parental consent and no one gets in trouble for it.

In fact judging by the vote against Prop 85 in November's election, it would appear most Californians are all for minors getting abortions without parental consent. So the score is:

Haircut without parental consent: No!

Abortion without parental consent:
Yes!

Do you see something wrong with this picture?

Anonymous said...

Chanman,
Once again, this so called father was more upset about his child being taken off campus without his knowledge than anything else.

And I think there are slight differences here between the abortion issue and the issue that you have raised here.

Please don't get me wrong, I think that underage females being able to receive an abortion without parental consent is so very wrong, but there are still huge differences here.

For one, the parent in this case had no idea where his son was at the time. If something would have happen to the boy in the teacher's custody the father would have been non the wiser until after school was out. Hopefully, he would have noticed then. Probably not.

Secondly, the boy was taken to get a haircut, more than likely, against his will. This is not legal. Although he was thinking of the safety of his other students and his school, the principal made a serious lapse in judgment here.

And thirdly, please, please, please remember that I am against this; it is now (unfortunately) legal for a young female to walk in and receive an abortion. But it is NOT legal for someone to march her into a clinic and make her have one.

So now the score is:

Taking child off campus w/out parental knowledge: NO

Forcing said student to receive haircut, no matter the reason: NO

Abortion without parental consent: YES (again, unfortunately)

Forcing said child to receive abortion: HELL NO

See the differences now?

Darren said...

George:

Here in California, if a girl wants to leave school to get an abortion, not only is the school *required by law* to let her leave, but the school is also required by law *not* to notify her parents that she's left school.

If she gets hurt in a car accident on the way to get an abortion, who's responsible?

Chanman said...

OK Anonymous,
I have figured out the problem: we are arguing from opposite ends of the issue. You are focusing on the kid getting a haircut against his will while a girl gets an abortion voluntarily. I concede you that, but that isn't the point.

The point is that parental consent was apparently required for a mere haircut, even if it was against the student's wishes, while parental consent is not required for a girl to get a life-altering medical procedure.

As long as you and I agree that parental consent should be required for a minor to get an abortion, then I think we are good to go.

Friends?

Anonymous said...

Oh you crazy Chanman. Of course friends. Especially since I revealed my secret identity to you.