[Jack.Kerr]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

sorry then, that's not how you wrote it, which was something like: the father told the school . . . which is the assumption I was talking about

Just to clarify, that wasn't an assumption either. The Mother said in an interview:

Yet Pat Hill said before her husband left for Iraq, he made a special arrangement with the assistant principal.

"He had spoken with Mr. Fletcher," said Pat Hill. "HE (original emphasis) thought there was an agreement understood that if he called either Joshua or Brandon at school, that everything was fine.

IMO, that's ridiculous for the mother to assert that as an excuse, IF the father even truly believed that constituted an agreement. (It doesn't.) Question to you: Do you really think that any kind of system can function that way with that kind of unilaterally-imposed, institutionalized exception? Exceptional circumstances should be exceptional--rare, infrequent, dealt with on a case-by-case basis; not routine, regular, frequent and predictable.

you sure like to attribute a lot of selfish and misguided intentions to only one side of this situation

I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. But I have observed enough classroom-type settings, as well as sixteen-year-olds, indulgent and entitled parents, cellphones, cellphone-related disruptions, and policy-enforcement type situations to form an opinion based on a recognized pattern.

If, on the other hand, you've read any suggestion that the teacher or the assistant principal had it in for the student, or that they were making a politically oriented anti-war statement with their actions, then I'd certainly consider that side of the story as well.

I hope it's been taken into consideration in this case. How far would you like to extend your prohibition on consideration of military service?

I notice that you didn't answer how far you would extend such a policy, but I think I have said previously that in the current situation, I don't think is should be considered AT ALL.
In fact, I think in a way it trivializes the real sacrifices and hardships that military families endure for that Mother to use her husband's deployment as an excuse for her 16-year-old to be exempted from a necessary disciplinary policy. Military service is certainly something to respect, but that doesn't mean that there won't be individuals who will try to abuse the situation.

I think one could make far more emotionally compelling arguments about how to treat veterans and their families that would make just as little sense, such as letting the votes of veterans and their families count more (10x, 100x, 1000x?) in elections, or extending Congressional voting ower to disabled veterans on matters relating to war. Or letting the Cindy Sheehans of the world decide troup deployment levels.