Parents and others have expressed concerns over a continuing decline in student literacy rates and math skills. At the same time, there’s a worrying erosion of common sense and critical thinking on the part of some school administrators.
Walnut Creek Elementary School in McDonough, Georgia, has reportedly suspended an eight-year-old student because, as the school principal explained to his mother, the boy brought “a weapon” to school – a keychain-sized toy “gun” made of LEGO parts. The student did not “say anything harmful or bad;” the sole issue appears to be that the two- or three-inch toy approximated the shape of a gun.
There may be more to the story than has been reported but, based on the School District’s own Code of Conduct, the three-day suspension seems wildly inappropriate. The policy on “personal belongings” (things like “toys”) states these cannot be brought to school “unless they have been approved as part of a class assignment. If such items are brought to school, they may be taken up and kept in the school office until parents come to claim them.” Otherwise, the policy requires that for “non-dangerous use and/or possession of hazardous objects” (actual knives, bludgeons, razors, bats and “any nonlethal gun replica, air gun”), absent any dangerous or threatening conduct the maximum punishment for an elementary school pupil’s first violation is a one-day suspension. “Non-lethal weapon” possession (“possession or use of a gun replica or toy gun that is portrayed as a weapon or could reasonably be mistaken for a weapon”) is a more serious Level Three violation, a class which includes gang-related activity, theft or vandalism in excess of $500, alcoholic beverages or illicit drugs, “terroristic threats,” and arson. For elementary school pupils, a Level Three violation is punished starting with a three-day suspension.
The Code of Conduct advises that “discipline should be appropriate for the misbehavior and the age of [the] student. Consequently, administrators have the latitude of assigning discipline in relation to the misbehavior.” Violations “will be based solely on a preponderance of the evidence, which means that it is more likely than not based on all of the evidence available that the student did violate the Code of Conduct.” A look at the offending toy indicates that it’s quite a stretch of reading comprehension and the evidence to label it a “hazardous object,” replica firearm, or toy “portrayed as a weapon or [that] could reasonably be mistaken for a weapon.” At a minimum, it isn’t hazardous, it doesn’t shoot anything, and it looks nothing like a weapon or an actual firearm.
These toys are also very popular, as a 2012 NRA-ILA alert on another LEGO-related “outrage” pointed out. “LEGOs are everywhere, even in the homes of enlightened progressives who would never dream of letting a Nerf gun or cap pistol contaminate their children’s ‘cruelty-free’ play spaces,” and can indeed be used for making “gun-like objects” that are still, indisputably, toys.
The LEGO incident is far from the first time that school officials have gone zero-tolerance on tenuously weapon-related conduct. In 2017, school officials suspended an Ohio seventh-grader simply because he “liked” an Instagram photo of an airsoft gun that his friend posted online. An assistant principal reportedly justified the ten-day suspension (later revoked) because it constituted “[l]iking a post on social media that indicated potential school violence,” despite the “like” being posted without a threat or even a comment.
In an even more insubstantial case, a Colorado second-grader was allegedly suspended “for throwing an imaginary grenade during recess on the playground,” despite not actually having anything in his hand and not threatening anyone. The boy explained he threw the pretend grenade at an equally pretend box that had something evil inside because he was trying “to save the earth.” The school district had an absolute “no-weapons” policy that applied to real and play weapons, but did not prohibit “imaginary weapons.” School officials later insisted that the suspension was “a much more complicated issue than has been portrayed.”
Administrators enforcing such policies tend to claim that “schools must adopt an uncompromising stance on any object that simulates a weapon” due to “safety and security” and to send the message that “guns will not be tolerated on our campuses.”
Playthings, though, are designed not to be legitimate safety or security threats, and experts have concluded that there is no play-gun to prison pipeline. Playing with toy weapons doesn’t indicate a greater propensity for violence or promote future criminality: “[W]hether among boys and girls, [it] is a fairly innocuous activity and is not associated with negative outcomes in kids long-term… Parents can probably feel a lot better letting their kids play with toy weapons if their kids are so inclined.” The true lesson in these policies and suspensions is more likely to stigmatize all guns – real, toy or completely imaginary – as bad, lacking in social utility, and to be avoided.
As for the eight-year-old student, his mother comments that there are other things “more severe” that people need to pay attention to “and not my child’s LEGO creation.” His elementary school reportedly lags behind the state average in student math and reading/language arts proficiency, and unwarranted and irrational suspensions won’t do anything to turn that around.
More Like This From Around The NRA
