There is mixed news out of Sumter, South Carolina. On February 1, Sumter School district Superintendent Dr. Randolph Bynum reversed the expulsion of six year-old Naomi McKinney, a situation I recently chronicled in an article titled: It Has Spread to South Carolina. This is good news indeed for Naomi, but on balance, bad news for the citizens of Sumter.
Among the facts revealed since my original article:
The Sumter police were called, examined if not seized the “gun,” and wrote a report noting it “[was] not recognized as a weapon according to state law.” They described it as “a BB gun that shoots plastic pellets,” pellets that were visible through the clear plastic.
According to Naomi’s father Hank, the gun was broken and would not fire.
A “hearing panel,” reviewed the case and upheld Naomi’s suspension.
Naomi has been out of school for nearly a month.
Thursday, Sumter School District Superintendent Dr. Randolph Bynum overturned his decision saying: ‘After careful thought and consideration for the safety of the school community, I have decided to vacate the ruling of the hearing panel. The suspension time has been served.
Notice that Mr. Bynum called Naomi’s punishment a “suspension,” when in fact, she was expelled for at least the remainder of the school year. Hank McKinney was thankful and restrained:
It’s about time, I hate that it had to go public, but maybe they need to rethink their policies a little,’ said Hank McKinney.
According to WLTX, the school district is giving at least the appearance of taking McKinney’s advice:
Sumter Superintendent Dr. Bynum says that they will collectively revisit all board policies that affect student discipline.
Good idea. Better late than never.
McKinney showed far more concern for Naomi’s education than the school district:
I hope she didn’t fall behind, we tried to pick up the ball with her education ourselves and teach her each day as we had her there,’ said McKinney.
As I noted in my original article, I sent an e-mail to Dr. Bynum:
Date: January 31, 2013 10:00:05 PM CST
To: Superintendent@sumterschools.net
Subject: Expulsion of Naomi McKinney
Dear Superintendent Bynum:
Good day. I write out of concern regarding a new story about the expulsion of Naomi McKinney, allegedly for bringing what would seem to be clearly a toy gun–a toy that could not reasonably be mistaken for an actual firearm, an actual weapon–to school.
It seems incredible that any school district would not only expel a six year-old girl for this, but would threaten her with arrest should she so much as cross a school property line in her parent’s vehicle.
Is there more to the story than news accounts are saying? I’d appreciate a response, and will publish it verbatim for the edification of my readers. I understand privacy laws, but perhaps you could address the relevant issues in a hypothetical fashion? Do you consider even toys that cannot possibly be mistaken for real firearms a danger? Do you consider such toys so dangerous as to require the expulsion of a kindergartner? Would you truly have a child in that situation arrested?
For your convenience, my article on this situation may be found at:
Thank your for your attention to this matter, and I hope to hear from you in the near future.
Yours,
Mike McDaniel
Stately McDaniel Manor
It will likely not be a surprise to readers that I’ve received no answer and doubt that one will be forthcoming. I hope Dr. Bynum and every professional, rational educator working in Sumter is cringing in embarrassment and hoping the media and blogstorms–to which I was glad to contribute–over their indefensible actions will quickly go away. But more likely, there are some in the district who are angry today, angry because they believe they were completely justified and who are even angry at little Naomi, who they no doubt feel got off lightly. Perhaps some even blame her for making them “look bad.” If so, this is very bad news for the citizens of Sumter and their school-aged children.
One might argue that because Mr. Bynum reversed the district’s decision, the system worked. They would be wrong. The Sumter system failed miserably and is likely–without substantial and immediate changes, likely to fail again–and for nearly a month, hunkered down and defended the indefensible. For a month it denied a little girl her education and treated her like a deadly threat, forcing her parents to avoid so much as driving on school property with her in the vehicle. It isolated and demonized Naomi and treated her like a social pariah; all of the resources of the school district were arrayed against a 6 year-old girl. There was apparently not a single adult–not one–in that school district or on the local school board with the decency and common sense to stand up and say: “this has gone too far.”
We know what did happen. What should have happened?
Let us recognize, first and foremost, two facts:
(1) Zero tolerance policies of any kind are foolish and sure to harm everyone that applies or runs afoul of them. They are zero discretion and zero thinking policies. They suggest that school districts don’t think highly enough of the intellects and common sense of their employees to trust them with adult decisions. Alternately they allow incompetent, even malicious, people to avoid making decisions and doing the jobs for which the public hires them. They are feel good statements of false virtue rather than the application of professional judgment and adult good sense.
The Sumter School District’s policy was overbroad and poorly written and as such, invited abuse, abuse that was visited on Naomi McKinney.
(2) Naomi is blameless. She is not sufficiently old to understand that she was doing anything wrong. She is certainly not old enough to understand adult overreactions to events half a nation away. However, she is sufficiently old to understand that the toy she brought to school was just that–a toy–and her classmates would like to see it, just as they would any similar toy. In that understanding, she displayed far more adult common sense than any of the adults involved in this debacle.
In this or any similar case, a rational teacher would have had two options: (1) Allow Naomi to display the toy for show and tell, and treat it as any other show and tell item. Children take their behavioral cues from adults. Treating a toy gun as though a live and ticking bomb had been brought into the school is hardly a good model of behavior for children. (2) Quietly, kindly and privately explain to Naomi that school rules don’t allow some things for show and tell. Hold the toy until she left for home, return it to her then, and discuss other things she might bring the next day. Naomi would probably have said it was silly not to allow kids to see something most of them play with every day, and her teacher could have simply said adults are silly that way sometimes. Any 6 year-old understands that.
But let’s continue to explore what went wrong. When Naomi’s teacher seized the toy they must have immediately involved the school principal (teachers cannot unilaterally suspend or expel students). The first chance to deal professionally and rationally with this situation was already lost. The principal had the second chance.
Any competent principal should, at most, have talked briefly with Naomi and explained that some things shouldn’t be brought to school and returned her to class. Obviously, however, this principal–Jeannie Pressley–entirely missed the opportunity to correct a plainly ridiculous overreaction on the part of the teacher and at the very least, endorsed the expulsion of Naomi.
In most school districts, such decisions automatically flow up the chain of command to an assistant superintendent and/or the superintendent, so there are normally at least one or two more opportunities to inject common sense into ill-conceived decisions. However, in many school districts, even if an administrator thinks a principal has made a questionable decision, they will tend to circle the wagons against students and parents. There is no way to tell if that was the case here, or if the superintendent and other administrators simply thought Naomi’s “crime” warranted expulsion for the remainder of the school year and the threat of arrest should she so much as touch a tiny toe on school ground.
Normally, that would be the end of the road unless the parents involved complained, as the McKinney’s obviously did. Normally, some sort of review process is then invoked, often a hearing before the local school board, or in this case, some kind of review by a “hearing panel.” Regardless of which method was used, such panels commonly include one or more administrators. And again, an opportunity for rational adults to see that a blameless child was being foolishly and cruelly punished for what amounts to no more than possession of a harmless toy, and to correct that wrong, was ignored and compounded.
Consider that the school district would have had–almost immediately–the report of the local police department containing the information that the toy was just that, a toy and not a weapon under state law. Let us, for the moment, forget the utter absurdity of any adult being unable to understand that a transparent plastic toy gun–a broken toy gun–with its soft plastic pellets actually visible within it is not only not a weapon but is entirely harmless. Forget too the utter absurdity of the necessity of having to be told that by the police–college educated teachers, principals and administrators weren’t sure?–and then ignoring them.
The system failed utterly, and so it would have remained had Naomi’s parents not taken her plight to the media and the blogosphere. It was only a month of unrelenting pressure and rightful shaming of people who apparently have little capacity for feeling shame that forced Dr. Bynum, a man who not only ultimately approved Naomi’s banishment and threatened her with arrest on behalf of the citizens of Sumter for whom he works, to change his mind. Note, gentle readers, that it was likely not a change of heart or a realization of wrong doing, or of the harm he was causing Naomi, but nearly a month of unrelenting public embarrassment and ridicule that reversed the decision.
An adult–a man–would apologize, sincerely and in person, to Naomi and to her parents. But then, an adult wouldn’t have punished Naomi in the first place and surely wouldn’t have hunkered down for nearly a month. I doubt Mr. McKinney is holding his breath waiting for an apology; I won’t be holding mine either.
Let us not forget the role of the local school board. They had the power to reverse Naomi’s punishment at any moment, but apparently did nothing. It is possible it was their influence, rather than any pang of conscience on the part of Bynum, that caused Bynum to reverse himself, and if so, that is little better for it still took the putative adults of the district nearly a month to right a wrong that should never have been inflicted on an innocent little girl. I can’t resist any longer: talk about bullying, this case is the national poster child.
This is what happens when citizens forget their role as the ultimate guardians of democracy and allow politicians and bureaucrats–or in this case, educrats–to run amok without adult supervision. Perhaps some members of the local school board did try to reverse this travesty but were politically checked. That’s a matter for the citizens of Sumter to sort out, and sort it out they should at the next electoral opportunity to ensure no more witless zero tolerance policies, no more teachers who can’t tell the difference between a toy and a weapon, no more principals with no sense of proportion, no more school board members without the decency and intellect to speak up and right obvious wrongs, and no more administrators whose concern is for their pride and power rather than the welfare of six year-old girls.
So should it be everywhere.
Joel said:
Michael,
I think they feared monetary concerns more than shame. I truly think Naomi’s civil rights were trampled on with impunity. The right to due process comes to mind.
Joel said:
Michael,
“In September of 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia found that because Zaccari expelled Barnes without notice or a hearing, Zaccari violated Barnes’ constitutional right to due process.” This case involves a Principal who expelled a student because of a collage on his facebook page. Isn’t this similar to that which happened to Naomi? Expelled and labeled a terrorist with out a hearing?
http://thefire.org/article/15395.html
This article shows that the Principal is monetarily responsible for his actions.and it is where I got the quote.
Hat tip to College Insurrection.
Carol said:
Joel,
I am not sure, but I think that the ‘law’ treats ‘school zones’ completely different than social media. Mike will know. I do recall, when my son was in high school, any school official and/or policeman could search any car/person in the “Drug Free Zone” without cause or warrant.
Sam said:
No offense intended Carol. But. Was that actual law, or just what you were all told was the law.
Carol said:
Truthfully Sam, I don’t really know. We lived in Virginia at the time and that activity took place at all the public schools. They claimed it was because it was a “Drug Free Zone” that they could do anything. That said, it may have been that because it was to “free our schools of drugs” that no one would dare to question their authority.
Your point is well taken and I will try to find out & get back to you.
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear Carol and Joel:
Hi there. In this area, school law is pretty clear. The Fourth Amendment–the part of the Bill of Rights which applies to search and seizure–is the standard here. Schools cannot search the person or property of students–without cause–simply because they are on school grounds. In these matters, schools are generally considered to be agents of the police and have the same restrictions. Probable cause applies. PC is facts or observations that would convince a reasonable police officer that a crime had been committed, a specific person committed it, and the evidence or fruits of that crime may be found in a specific place. Absent informed consent to a search, a warrant is normally required, though in drug cases, because drugs may be easily disposed of, there are some narrow exceptions.
If, for example, a school has credible information that little Johnny has an actual gun in his backpack, they may generally seize and search that backpack when Johnny enters the school under one of those exceptions. Schools may normally search lockers and their contents because there is not a reasonable expectation of privacy in them. Schools commonly make clear that lockers are school property temporarily loaned to students and they may be searched at will. Students taking part in school activities may generally be drug tested at random because in taking part in those activities, they give their explicit or presumed consent to those tests, yet they may refuse at any time, and the school may remove them from activities for their refusal.
Gun free and drug free zones don’t suspend the Fourth Amendment, not even close. Any police officer saying otherwise is either woefully uninformed and/or lying to you. Any officer who conducts illegal searches may be in real trouble of various kinds.
Hank McKinney said:
As Naomi’s father I would like to say that the teachers and pricipal were in support of my daughter. The policy was the problem, they were just C.Y.O.A. on how to handel it and all went to bat for her. But “if you let one slide you have to let them all slide” sooooooo I shed a little light on how the policy needs to be re examined, and it worked things will change and instead of “one size fits all” it’ll be case by case- Intent, use, and history will decide the out-come in the future in our district. Thankyou for your support and yes I accept some of the blame….. you cant watch them all the time
Hank Mckinney
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear Hank:
Thanks for getting in touch, and I’m very glad Naomi is back in school.
What you’ve described is unthinking adherence to bad policy. The fact remains that the principal, the superintendent and/or the school board all had the power to say “this case doesn’t meet the criteria of the policy,” and they chose not to do it. Apparently they don’t speak with each other, or did and didn’t have the common sense and decency to do the right thing, which is very bad no matter how you slice it.
It may be wise for you to keep a close eye on your back and Naomi’s back as well. There will surely be people in that district who blame you for exposing their lack of common sense and professional ability, and such people tend to have long memories.
Thanks again!
Carol said:
Thank you, Mike, for the correct information. I can always count on you to fill-in the holes with precise and correct answers (backed by actual laws). I follow your blog because I know I will get a truthful answer!
I will say that while my children were in high school, during the nineties, parents were routinely told that all rights were suspended when anyone was on school grounds. More than once our son had friends who were searched for no cause except that the administration/police officer ‘thought’ they might be harboring some drugs. Only 1 time was anything illegal found….a “resinated pipe” in the trunk of a car. The young man was suspended and could not return to the school, even for his graduation a month later. He was an honor roll student and the class valedictorian. Thankfully, that young man is now an extremely successful screen writer:-)
I fear that not much has changed since my children attended high school. Few parents know their rights and are intimidated because they know that their children will have to endure reprisals from power hungry educators and police. The word “drugs”, and now “guns”, seems to have wiped-out our Constitutional Rights. One only has to look at the seizure law related to illegal drugs to give that statement validity.
Thanks for your great blog! I learn so much from you and the others that make wonderful comments.
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear Carol:
You are far too kind. As Wayne and Garth would say: “I’m not worthy!”
Constitutional rights in the school setting are a balancing act. It may be helpful to review Tinker v. Des Moines School District.
In that decision, the court wrote: “It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech…at the schoolhouse gate.” The court has consistently applied that standard to other educational issues. Generally speaking, as long as the actions of school authorities are designed and implemented to maintain proper and reasonable order and to maintain a proper learning environment, the courts will tend to give them substantial deference. However, the Constitution still applies.
Thanks again!
retire2005 said:
Mike, as you know, I live in Texas where our school board members are elected.
The current chairman of our local school board is a man I have known since he was in high school. A stauch Democrat, a hard core union member, he is dumber than a brick just like he was in high school (a case of social promotion due to his last name) and was only elected because of his last name. And why is he our board chairman? Because people don’t want to be bothered to ask simple questions before they vote to give someone authority over our kids
Twenty-five years ago my daughter attended Katy High School. She was all into western clothing but was sent home one day because one of her teachers thought her belt looked like it had the Lone Star Beer logo on it. It didn’t, but that didn’t matter to a clueless teacher. Her punishment? A three day expulsion. I complained, but all that did was get my daughter barred from her first prom and I was sent a letter telling me that under no circumstances, was I allowed on school property. This was still in the days when the high school parking lot was full of student owned pickups with gun racks in the back windows that had guns in them. Did I know all that was illegal at the time? No. Fortunately, I had the ability to move to another district but not all parents have that luxury.
Parents usually are not informed enough on educational laws to fight an over zealous school system that imposes nutty rules and regulations that have nothing to do with child safety. But they should be, just like Mr. McKinney fought back. These children belong to us, not to the local educrats. We, not the schools, not the federal government, should be able to determine what our children eat, how they play, what the dress code is, etc.
Mr. McKinney, my advise to you is to run for school board since your child has such a long time to go in the public school system. You, and like minded parents, need to bring some sanity to the system, especially the “zero” tolerance system. I can’t tell you how much trouble I was dealt by teachers, principals (one principal of a high school told me I should put my daughter on birth control pills so she wouldn’t turn wild) and school boards. Or, if you can, home school your beautiful little daughter.
Carol said:
Retire 2005.
Excellent comment and advice! You put all of this in great perspective. Beautifully written. Thanks.
Henry Bowman said:
Great post, Mike, an I agreed with you completely until you said this,
“This is what happens when citizens forget their role as the ultimate guardians of democracy and allow politicians and bureaucrats–or in this case, educrats–to run amok without adult supervision.”
My friend, democracy is pure evil and is what has put us in this mess. It is literally mob rule. It is not mentioned in our founding documents, and in the writings of our founders and other contemporaries, it is described as the worst thing that a society could endure. Of course, Marx had not been born yet! :D
Please, the united States of America is supposed to be a Constitutional representative republic. NOT a “democracy”. Even though we have that system operating in fact for all practical purposes. Remember Franklin?
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”
Therein lies the end to our experiment in freedom. The Free Stuff Army has outvoted us, seeking to eat us for lunch, for temporary satiation, in a purely unConstitutional way. Pray for a quick and relatively bloodless Constitutional Restoration. It seems to be coming soon.
Our fantastic kids and their frustrated parents will be compensated for their travails. The schools will be run by Americans again, we must simply have the guts to toss these scum out. By any means necessary.
Do it for the children! LOL!
Take care.
Henry Bowman said:
Oh, forgive my typos …
SGMR said:
I’m a bit late on this, but in reading your piece, I noticed a couple of things wrong. First, Bynum does not have his doctorate, so he is not “Dr. Bynum.” Secondly, you mistakenly said that Jeannie Pressley was the principal. Impossible. This child attended AD Elementary. Mrs. Pressley is the principal at AD Middle. On a side note, I agree that this child should not have been expelled.
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear SGMR:
Thanks for the update.
Pingback: Terror Horror In Hoke County | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Terror Horror In Hoke County - Watcher of Weasels