Ct Skittles Scandal!!!

[DawnCt1]

Now one would think that the ban on candy sales in schools would apply to vending machines, fund raisers, etc. Nope, this is a suspendable violation. I am glad that they are watching out for those kids!

Conn. Student Suspended For Buying Candy In School
NEW HAVEN, Conn. (AP) ― An eighth-grade honors student at a New Haven school has been suspended for buying a bag of candy at school.

Michael Sheridan, a student at Sheridan Middle School, was suspended from school for one day, barred from attending an honors student dinner and stripped of his title as class vice president.

Officials say he was punished because he bought a bag of Skittles from another student.

A school spokeswoman says the New Haven school system banned candy sales and fundraisers in 2003 as part of the district-wide school wellness policy.

Spokeswoman Catherine Sullivan-DeCarlo says there are no candy sales allowed in schools, period.

The student who sold the candy also was suspended.

 

[Olaf]

Poor kid.

 

[hentob]

Ridiculous

 

[DawnCt1]

Ridiculous

It was certainly worthy of him missing his honor student dinner. And of course, how can we have a vice president of the class who eats SKITTLES! If it were chocolate he could have claimed "addiction" and he would have been allowed access to the ADA.

 

[Breezie]

That is incredibly absurd.

 

[Maleficent13]

Isn't a governor about to be impeached because of exactly the same thing? Deliberately breaking a rule? I fail to see why this is ridiculous but that is not.

 

[DawnCt1]

Isn't a governor about to be impeached because of exactly the same thing? Deliberately breaking a rule? I fail to see why this is ridiculous but that is not.

No, a governor is in violation of federal and state laws; beginning with money laundering, the Mann Act and prostitution. What happened to the days when a teacher would have said, "Johnny, you know the rules, now hand over the candy!"

 

[hentob]

Isn't a governor about to be impeached because of exactly the same thing? Deliberately breaking a rule? I fail to see why this is ridiculous but that is not.

Comparing a child eating skittles to a governor hiring a prostitute is

 

[JR6ooo4]

That is incredibly absurd.

The rule may be ridiculous, maybe not.
But not following the rule, and being so involved in his school I am sure he was aware of it, is just plain stupid.

"I am special. I am the class president. I get good grades. I don't have to follow the rules!" Is this what you want your children learning in school? What if he was not punished? What would all the other students then be learning?

Mikeeee

 

[Olaf]

Isn't a governor about to be impeached because of exactly the same thing? Deliberately breaking a rule? I fail to see why this is ridiculous but that is not.

Please tell me you're kidding. Have you never heard the old adage of the punishment fitting the crime? This "crime" is worthy of after-school detention at the most.

 

[escape]

I don't see anything wrong with it. School officials are just trying to nip it in the bud before he gets into the hard stuff - snickers or anything with caramel or chocolate in it.

 

[DawnCt1]

The rule may be ridiculous, maybe not.
But not following the rule, and being so involved in his school I am sure he was aware of it, is just plain stupid.

"I am special. I am the class president. I get good grades. I don't have to follow the rules!" Is this what you want your children learning in school? What if he was not punished? What would all the other students then be learning?

Mikeeee

You are right! Except the punishment wasn't enough. He should have been made to do the perp walk in front of a school wide assembly. Perhaps the school will now be proactive and set up stocks in the front yard. A day in the stocks with a dunce cap on his head will teach him a lesson he won't forget.

 

[Maleficent13]

Oh, come on. The dramatization is a bit much.

Both individuals held office in their respective institutions. Both individuals broke the laws of those institutions (ironically enough, by doing the same thing...purchasing a prohibited commodity). Why should one get to continue to serve in his office and the other not?

 

[DawnCt1]

Oh, come on. The dramatization is a bit much.

Both individuals held office in their respective institutions. Both individuals broke the laws of those institutions (ironically enough, by doing the same thing...purchasing a prohibited commodity). Why should one get to continue to serve in his office and the other not?

Because one is a felony, in fact, multiple felonies, and candy is still legal in Ct. but who knows for how long!

 

[Beth76]

Is this really a suspendible (is that a word?) offense? I understand he broke the rule and should get punished. Is this punishment in the student handbook? The punishment seems a tad harsh.

 

[Shannon G]

Oh, come on. The dramatization is a bit much.

Both individuals held office in their respective institutions. Both individuals broke the laws of those institutions (ironically enough, by doing the same thing...purchasing a prohibited commodity). Why should one get to continue to serve in his office and the other not?

That's ridiculous. I agree with the poster who talked about the punishment fitting the crime. Even for a govenor, there are certain infractions that would not lead to loss of his position, simply because they're not serious enough. What if the govenor got a speeding ticket? That too is a deliberate violation of the law - but would anyone seriously suggest that he should lose his job for that?

The kid bought candy. Not drugs. Not alcohol. Yes, he broke the rules, but it was a "lesser" rule and should garner a lesser punishment. That's why there are things like detention, so that lesser infractions can get a less serious punishment.

 

[stinkerbelle's mom]

Is this really a suspendible (is that a word?) offense? I understand he broke the rule and should get punished. Is this punishment in the student handbook? The punishment seems a tad harsh.

I agree. Seems like he was punished 3 times over-- not to mention if his parents punished him at home? Can you imagine what would happen if he had something really wrong like alcohol?!?!?!

 

[Boo'sMom]

I don't see anything wrong with it. School officials are just trying to nip it in the bud before he gets into the hard stuff - snickers or anything with caramel or chocolate in it.

Not sure where anyone is reading "entitlement" into the kid's MO......

BTW..chocolate skittles ARE now available.

 

[Maleficent13]

I fully realize that the boy broke no legal prohibitions in purchasing the candy. I know it is not prosecutable. However...a school is a microcosm of the "real world" and as an officer of that school, he has an obligation to uphold the law of the land...in this case, not to buy candy. There are probably even bylaws of the student council that state that specifically. It is not unusual for a member of the student council to be stripped of his/her duties for breaking school rules. I see nothing untoward about it.

Do I agree the whole candy prohibition thing is stupid? Probably. But not really the point.

 

[DawnCt1]

DS#3 was in third grade the day after Halloween, when he discovered himself on the school bus, sitting beside a candy wrapper on the seat next to him. When the bus driver got up to close the window of the bus, she noticed the vile piece of evidence. In a stern, firm and loud voice, she screamed; "NO CANDY ON THE BUS" and she firmly slapped DS#3 across the face in front of all to see. Unfortunately, it wasn't even his candy wrapper. It was left from the high schoolers who took the bus just a short time before.