People were baffled when a 7-year-old was suspended after she told a classmate he was going to hell.
What the school was trying to accomplish is not exactly clear; while it’s certainly not desirable to have second-graders playing the part of Jerry Falwell, suspension was not the appropriate action to take.
The girl’s “offense” was that she used the word “hell,” which the school considered to be a swear word. The girl, however, used it in the geographical sense, meaning only to state what she considered to be a fact – not for it to be an insult or curse. She didn’t say “Go to hell;” she said, “You’re going to hell,” which is quite different in terms of intent.
| The Issue: A second-grade girl was suspended for a day after telling another student he was going to hell. |
The punishment does not match the crime in this case. If the school is suspending a student for merely using the word “hell,” what is the punishment for things like schoolyard fighting? The firing squad? The only thing they are teaching children – aside from using mild swear words will get you out of school – is that there is very little difference between swearing and, for example, kicking a teacher.
Such a zero-tolerance policy may be appropriate if a student brings a gun to school or plants a bomb in the faculty bathroom, but it’s hardly necessary for language problems. Suspension is a drastic step to take – her speech perhaps merited a 10-minute stint on the time-out chair, but nothing more.
Kids learn much worse language on the playground and from their parents. In fact, the girl picked up on using the word from her mother, who apparently was lecturing the teenage sister on the perils of her activities. If every student caught swearing – with stronger words than “hell” – is suspended, there would be few children left in school.
– The Associated Press contributed to this editorial
