I also believe that more is going on. If this was truly sexual acting out, then CPS should have been called in on suspicion that the little boy was being abused. Surely Supt. Gooldy is a mandated reporter of child abuse and not doing so would make him derelict in his duties, and wouldn't that be bending rules a great deal more serious than hand kissing?
I also think the label of sexual harassment is inappropriate. But Gooldy chose to use it because he, an adult male, is accusing a child barely out of toddlerhood of an adult crime. And he is using the punishment of suspension, once reserved for outright vandalism and school yard fighting or bringing switchblades and guns to class, to correct a behaviour which he perceives as threatening. IMHO, however, the use of such an emotionally loaded label is less about the facts of the incident--<modsnip>
Actually, I think that the behaviour that bothered Gooldy so much was not sexual aggression but the much more serious crime of disobedience. That six year old boy, because he was six and was being funny or playful or mischievous (and hopefully not because he was being abused) disobeyed a rule so he must be dealt with. He is a trouble maker who is is not blindly obeying rules so he must be kept away from the good children who seem to do exactly what they are told. This is much more about authorities using a fascistic approach in dealing with young minds, bending them to the will of authority than concern about unwanted displays of affection. It seems that in his district minor infractions must be dealt with in a way to frighten all the other children into accepting and following whatever rules will be instituted next.
Sadly, there is, potentially, very much more going on than hand kissing or keeping order in schools. There is that vast, hungry maw of the for-profit prison system to be filled. How much has its very existence influenced people to accept out of proportion punishments for minor incidents involving children? How close are the parents and authorities to agreeing that the slightest infractions (lateness, truancy), no matter the context, are justifiable reasons for imprisonment? Black and white rules don't really exist. There's always someone who is bigger, or louder, or less popular, or more sensitive, something that will make them more likely to be vulnerable targets and, therefore, to be punished as examples to the rest of the student body. And then repeatedly hurt by that student body because they have been targeted by authorities. Superintendent Gooldy has implied that this six year old has been engaging in an unacceptable behaviour that has escalated over time (again the implication is that it was an extended period of time) to the level that he was forced by the seriousness of the child's inability to follow his orders to suspend that child. So, it seems to me that this bureaucrat's sensibilities were pricked when he felt he'd been flagrantly disobeyed by a six year old. How far removed is this man from understanding children? Clearly he understands that he's the one giving the orders and those incalcitrant six year olds must obey without question. Or else. I wonder how long Gooldy's label of sexual harassment will appear on that little boy's school record, and beyond. How many other children have been treated like mini-criminals in Gooldy's district with his active co-operation? How far away would he send those who broke his rules? To prison?
Unlikely? Ask the 4,000 child victims of "Kids for Cash" Mark Ciavarella whose sentences have been overturned by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. I'm pretty sure that school authorities vigorously presented evidence in every one of those cases. And I'll bet that they referred to "black and white" rules to prove they were justified in doing so even as they were helping Ciavarella earn over a million dollars in kick-backs from the prison-for-profit system. And I'm sure they'd do the same thing today.
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/soci...la-sentenced-28-years-prison-selling-children
http://variety.com/2013/film/reviews/kids-for-cash-review-1200911791/
I think Supt. Gooldy and others like him have the best interests of the school system rather than the best interests of the child in mind when they make decisions like this. A school is not a military unit composed of adults who have pledged obedience to their superior officers. A school is not a convent or a monastery with unquestioning obedience as a religious commitment. It's a place where children can grow with the guidance of reasonable rules with reasonable consequences put in place for the physical, emotional, and psychological safety of the growing children who study within it. Absolutely children need the consistency of rules which are enforced equally on all the students, but those rules need to be stated within the framework of a child's experience. The, probably, unintended consequences of this suspension may be far darker and more damaging than it appears on first glance.
