No, it’s not. This article is about one child and parent or set of parents who thinks that for whatever reason, THIS child is special and should be exempt from the rules.

Of course, once you exempt one child from one rule, you have to look at every other rule and see which children are exempt from those. Before long, there’s no point in having rules any more, because everyone is exempt from them.

Webster’s defines that point as anarchy.

Quite frankly, the district official was right. Rules are rules, and must be followed, or society as a whole collapses under the weight of exceptions.

Regarding beads:

It is absolutely wrong and unfair to say that this child may wear her beads because she SAYS they are for this reason, but this other child cannot wear beads because they are for this other reason. How do we know that the child who SAYS one thing is telling the truth? Children lie. It is the nature of children.

A violation of the rules with good intentions is still a violation, and trust me when I say that this child knew she was violating the rules. Kids in schools often know what is forbidden before the staff does, and will go to remarkable lengths to bend or break those rules, just to see what happens.

“9. Students will not wear coats inside during the school day.”

Hiding guns and weapons. It’s easier to do with a coat on.

Not such a weird sounding rule now, is it?

And yes, their dress code does specify this. The lazy journalist even cited it in his article, but failed to follow this lead. “Students will not wear any clothing deemed to be gang-related, including, but not limited to, bandannas, colors or flags.” The beaded necklace is a type of “flag,” or a way of secretly sending information to others. (Also note the “but not limited to” bit.)

When you know that tidbit of info, this whole story shifts into another angle that you previously might not have considered. Don’t you agree? Now, doesn’t that make you angry at the lazy journalism that you’ve just fallen prey to?