Bad: Not invited to a birthday party
Really bad: Everybody else in school got invited
Neatorama-worthy: The school saw this, and confiscated all of the invitation cards because of discrimination ... which led the father to complain to the Swedish parliament because his "child's rights has been violated."
Here's what happened:
The school, in Lund, southern Sweden, argues that if invitations are handed out on school premises then it must ensure there is no discrimination. [...]
He says the two children were left out because one did not invite his son to his own party and he had fallen out with the other one.
The boy handed out his birthday invitations during class-time and when the teacher spotted that two children had not received one the invitations were confiscated.
"My son has taken it pretty hard," the boy's father told the newspaper Sydsvenskan. "No one has the right to confiscate someone's property in this way, it's like taking someone's post," he added.
That being said, it was a private school. If you didn't like the rules, you didn't enroll your kid there. The idea of a public school deciding who gets to go to parties is going to far.
What's remarkable about the story is that the father, rather than thinking, "Oh yeah, I guess we could have handled that better," took the issue to PARLIAMENT. What a ridiculous response to a tiny issue.
Unless this is a publicly-funded party, I don't see how discrimination rules can apply. It's a private party, and the person who organizes it has the rights to choose who or who not to invite.
Even if the kid 'brutally' uninvited those two kids in front of the class, the teacher is still having a power trip - finding the wrong rule to apply to the wrong situation with an over-reacted punishment. The school can easily otherwise talk the kid through other ways. Besides, sometimes when one kid really dislikes another, there is no way to resolve it right away.
The problem here is that the school escalated the issue with over-the-top rules, making a mountain out of molehill.
The father should be fined for wasting Parliaments time.
Im am glad to see that frivolous legal complaints are not just an American phenomenon
No one is making an issue of whether or not the kid has to invite the whole class. And while you're right, there's probably no easy way of resolving the dispute between the kids, that doesn't mean the teacher should just sit by and watch while they mistreat each other during class. The teacher gathering up the invitations was hardly "over-the-top"; whereas taking the resulting complaint to Parliament is pure absurdity.
@Babymech:
If the article is accurate, taking the issue to Parliament is exactly what the father did: he "lodged a complaint with the parliamentary ombudsman." And even if the complaint went through some other mechanism in the Ministry of Justice or whatever, it doesn't really change the fact that it's a gross overreaction. His kid screwed up and acted inconsiderately; he should take a little responsibility for that.
Or you can just take my word for it.
Like I said though, I thought the school did the right thing here, and I believe that the father should focus on getting his kid to understand why he picked the wrong way to go about this. That said, from my perspective as a citizen I'm happy that my fellow citizens keep the government on their toes, whenever there's a suspicion of wrongdoing.
The teacher so did the right thing. She/he has every right to control what happens in the class room - especially during CLASS TIME - and not allow that kind of meanness. It was a great thing to do! So many adults let bullying happen, and just look the other way. (Now that would have been something to complain about.)
That idiot father could maybe take a minute and think about that; the fact that his son is privileged to have a techer who cares enough to try to create a friendly, nice school environment for all the children - including his own son.
Yes, he was openly inconsiderate to one kid who previously hadn't invited him to his birthday party and another kid who had evidently bullied him for some time. Would you invite your antagonists to your own birthday party? I.e. what the kid did is not a big deal, in fact it isn't a deal at all.
That's of course regardless if it's against the school policy or not.
Back in elementary school, I had a pirate birthday party, and I invited kids who I didn't necessity like; still managed to have a good time.
You (and several others here, like MrPumpernickel) seem to be confusing the idea of inviting everyone, and inviting only the people you want in an acceptable way. I don't think anyone is saying the kid actually had to invite everyone. And there's nothing weak, soft, or PC about being good to other people: treating your enemies better than they treat you requires much more strength than just carrying on the cycle. I hope this kid learns that lesson now so he doesn't turn out like his father.
@Babymech:
I'm not really interested in parsing the Swedish legal code, although I appreciate the explanation. My point was just the father took this much further than was appropriate (that is, to Parliament).
If a friend cares about your birthday, they'll let you know and to hell with anyone who didn't. Either that or stop thinking that just because you were born means you're so goddamn special (you little snot-nosed brat).
As for the kid...well boo-hoo, so two of his classmates didn't get invited, one of whom snubbed the kid in the first place. Would it have been more tactful to not snub them in public? Sure. That doesn't make it the kid's responsibility to avoid it, nor the teacher's to prevent it. Why keep these kids in a bubble? One day, they'll have to learn that that's just how life is; the sooner, the better. Try and 'protect' them, and you're just going to end up with a generation of whimpering weaklings.
It seems that the people outraged by this and insisting that it should be all or none invited are bitter that they didn't get an invitation to something at some point and are still angry, or are of the kind who think the losing team deserves a trophy too and that there should be 25 Snow Whites. That's not how life works.
Besides, even if he had mailed the invitations, after the party, the two kids that weren't invited would feel snubbed anyway because the other kids would be talking about it.
I understood Babymech's point, but perhaps you missed mine: I don't think the father should have taken the issue ANYWHERE beyond the walls of his own house. This is not an issue to take to the government. His son made the mistake, so he should deal with this son. And I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand, but NO ONE IS SAYING THE KID HAS TO INVITE EVERYONE. They're saying that if he wants to exclude a couple of kids, that’s fine, just don't pass out the invitations in class.
I don't know if it was the kid's responsibility to avoid the snub (he is eight, after all) or the father's (he may not have know about it) but it was ultimately left to the teacher to control behavior in his/her classroom. I'm kind of amazed that you think there's something wrong with correcting rude behavior in a classroom. Teaching our kids how to be polite is the opposite of "keeping them in a bubble," it's teaching them how to engage in society, which is one of fundamental reasons we send them to school in the first place. And if you don't think we should teach our kids not to be rude just because the world is rude, well, ask yourself why the world is rude.
And your lazy PC argument is worn out. If you want to end up with a bunch of whimpering weaklings, have their parents complain to the government every time they feel like their kids have been slighted. It wasn't the kids who didn't get the invitations who caused the ruckus, after all.
Yes, the school policy was that if you're going to invite people to your birthday party (while you're on school grounds) you have to invite your entire class, or just the boys if it's a boys party and likewise for girls. Had he done it in private that would have been another matter.
In my mind the policy is idiotic, it's all part of this PC culture which's main concern is to protect the young. Hogwash, they need to learn at an early age what disappointment means otherwise they won't be able to tackle it in adult life.
Did it occur to you that this PC idiocy is why the father got fed up and took the issue to the government? Is it extreme? Sure. I would have just dealt with it through a conference with the teacher. However, this coddling and making everyone feel special trend is producing a bunch of soft people that are kept in a bubble until the big bad world drives them to file frivolous lawsuits because someone distressed them.
Right, exactly: he didn’t have to invite everyone, if he did it privately. That is to say, he didn’t HAVE TO invite everyone. Several people keep asked, “What’s wrong with not inviting everyone?” Nothing! Just do it in a reasonably polite way! Seriously, it’s not that complicated.
And while I very strongly agree that we shouldn’t be overprotective of our children – that does seem to be an increasing problem here in the US and perhaps other places – I don’t think that means condoning blatant rudeness when we see it. The flipside of your argument (that we should let kids be exposed to difficult situations so they learn how to deal with them) is that it teaches other kids that acting like jerks is acceptable. There are plenty of injustices available to kids; we don’t need to actively condone the ones that occur under our watch. They are children, after all: it’s our obligation to protect them, just as it’s our obligation to tell them when they’ve screwed up.
@Evilbeagle:
I’m sorry, but it is rude for a kid to walk around an entire classroom passing out invitations, and skip two kids. If you don’t see that, then any argument about social engagement or empathy will be lost on you. But I do agree with your second point: the father’s reaction actually is a valid argument against PC extremism – but simple courtesy is not.
He's a kid, do you really expect him to think in those ways?
It's easy to sit here as youths and adults and think that it would be obvious that the kid should take these things in concern, but frankly young children aren't developed enough to do so. He probably didn't think it was either rude or polite.
No, I don't necessarily expect the kid to think of that. That's why there's a teacher in the room: to teach those exact lessons (which is what the teacher did).
@Evilbeagle:
If a teacher sees a kid mistreating another kid, it’s appropriate for him/her to act directly, and not mince around – and if that means the whole class sees it, all the better: if they saw the slight, they should see the consequences so they understand the cause and the effect – and don’t just assume that the teacher condoned the behavior. And anyway, by your logic, the teacher isn’t a tool: the kid should have been publicly humiliated. I mean, why would you want to protect a child from humiliation? The sooner he’s humiliated, the sooner he’ll learn to deal with it. You don’t want him to grow up all coddled and soft, do you?
The teacher acted inappropriately. She did not pay for the invitations or put work into them as this kid and his parents did, so she basically stole them. She humiliated rather than act in a way that might have taught the boy to be more tactful, but since teacher had no clue what tact really is, this happened. He was in no way obligated to invite those two kids, so why is the teacher punishing him so harshly by confiscating the invitations? The idea that it was such a disruption doesn't hold water. Were it just a matter of disrupting class, the teacher could have easily gotten the point across minus the drama, which was probably a bigger disruption than his handing out the invitations was in the first place. Had he invited the whole class, the invitations would not have been a disruption, but now that the parents are involved, it's convenient to call his handing out invitations a disruption, isn't it?
Coming down on a child like some rabid harpy and taking his things is not deserved, and actually a bit cruel. It's one thing to allow a child to go through the little heartbreaks and humiliations that come along with childhood. Everyone's been slighted at one point or another. Everyone has done the slighting at one point or another too. That's normal, natural, and not really a big deal. Again, I'm sure that the uninvited kids will live.
Talking to someone about a behavior they feel is inappropriate when the child was acting innocently is not coddling. The teacher could have done this, but instead chose to be a tool.
The logic you are claiming is mine is conveniently and wrongly twisted. Children shouldn't make the team if they can't hit the ball and it sucks. Children shouldn't be coddled and told that they can all be Snow White. Children should learn that treating their peers like crap won't get them invited to the party. However, an adult has no business acting like a spoiled child and should know better than to call someone out the way she did this kid.
If you honestly don’t think that it’s rude for a kid to walk around a classroom passing out party invitations only to exclude two of the kids, well, I think you’re suffering from an acute lack of empathy. Yes, it’s the slighted kid’s choice to feel bad, but all of us have a choice in how we react to any insult: that never absolves the person doing the insulting. (And thank you for the detailed description of all the possible “disruptions,” but none of my comments have been based on the idea of anyone disrupting anything, so I’m not sure what you’re getting at. I don’t think that passing out invitations, or gathering them back up again, is much of a disruption either way.)
I agree that kids slight each other all the time, and it’s nothing to get all that worked up about (my complaint is really with the father) but I do absolutely think it should be dealt with if it’s done openly. Any kid who sees their teacher ignore an open insult in the classroom would have to think, “Huh, I guess that’s a fine way to act, the teacher sat right there and watched it and didn’t say a thing.” I don’t think the teacher just had a right, I think they had an obligation to deal with it: an obligation that extends to the kid with the invitations as well as the kids that were passed over. Ignoring crass behavior is not a character-builder, as you seem to think.
At the same time I don’t think the kid’s behavior is worth getting worked up over, I don’t think a teacher gathering up invitations is worth getting worked up over either – certainly not to the point where I’d start calling anyone a “rabid harpy” or a “tool” or accuse them of stealing the invitations, or of acting like a “spoiled child.” Yow. The article simply states that the teacher took the invitations, so it seems fair to say that you’ve got the same inclination for hysterical overreaction as the father of this kid.
And finally, I agree that kids shouldn’t make the team or star in the play if they aren’t good enough – and they shouldn’t get the idea that treating their peers poorly will get them invited to parties, either. Fair enough. But by the very same token, they shouldn’t be given the idea that openly disregarding the emotions of other people is acceptable.
This is a job for the United Nations!
As for the dad, I wouldn't have gone to Parliament with it, but I would have raised unholy hell at the school.
The kid was planning a party and he was excited to invite his friends. I'm sure he wasn't out to "openly disregard the emotions of other people", which is a phrase that smells so badly of PC it hurts to type. And we don't even know if the other two kids cared anyway.
Is it okay to shoot a mosquito with an elephant gun as this teacher did with heavy handed, power tripping behavior? The disregard she showed this kid was worse than anything the snubbed kids might have felt and far more damaging, as snubbing two people that aren't your friends to begin with is hardly damaging. Did he get his invitations back after class? Probably not, though we can't say either way.
So this kid is left with no invitations for his friends, an adult humiliating him and dressing him down rather than tactfully explaining what was wrong with what he did, and half the internet and all of Swedish Parliament debating the issue. Yeah, I think that's a bit worse than being snubbed.
For the non-swedes here, the original ice cream is called Nogger, and has a tan colored caramel coating. They tried a seasonal variant of the ice-cream, replaced the caramel with a black licorice coating and called it subsequently Nogger Black. Now guess why that raised some outraged eyebrows.
The teacher confiscated the invitations, which strongly implies, though I did say we don't know for sure, that she did not give them back. Either way, though, that's worse than the snub.
So yeah, I'll take the last word. The teacher was wrong. There is never tact in confiscation and making two left out kids an issue. I have made it clear if something is unknown. Do you know if the two kids who were snubbed were actually, you know, bothered? Uhm...no. The teacher decided that they were according to our information.
I've enjoyed watching you and c-dub get yourselves all twisted up over this, and while I don’t really agree with either of you, at least he stuck to the facts of the article. I’m not sure why you’re so bent out of shape about the teacher anyway, since they were doing their job according to school policy. (Sure, you can dispute the policy, but I wouldn’t expect a teacher to violate it on something as small as this, even if they didn’t agree with it.) Hurling absurd insults around like "harpy" and "tool" without any evidence either way just makes you come across like a lunatic.
So, while I will admit that yes, I strongly worded my statements, I don't believe that based on the information we have, that it is entirely inaccurate. As far as I am concerned, that teacher is a tool and a harpy.
I'm not worked up over this, personally. I'd be hard pressed to get "worked up" over much. I have fun with stuff until it bores me. I just find it strange how people are quick to defend the two uninvited guests when we have no word on how they even feel about it, and do know that they are not friends of this child. While I also think that the dad would have done better to rip the teacher and school administration a new one, that he is suddenly a jerk for defending his kid who had property stolen from him at the highest level he can is pretty crazy to me. After all, people defend parents who go to stupid lengths for far more frivolous things. And, for all we know, that is the only way to handle it in Sweden. I am not up on Swedish law.
Anyhow, I've been pretty bored with this post for a long time, so I'm done.
You’ve been doing this in nearly every post, and it’s bizarre to me that you don’t even see it. Or maybe you do, but you ignore the inconvenience. The thing is, you make some valid points, but they’re really easy to disregard when they’re surrounded by so much nonsense and empty hostility.