Kids kicked out of Catholic school for actions of parent?

Starkbuck

Active member
Nearly every private school has a school handbook or code of conduct in which the parents and students sign and agree to abide by. I am guessing that this behavior was not aligned with the values of the school and therefore they were asked to leave. Sucks for the kids, but parents need to remember that they are parents and their actions represent more than themselves. am fairly certain that pornography doesn't align with the Christian and/or Catholic values of the school.
 

ProV1

Well-known member
Nearly every private school has a school handbook or code of conduct in which the parents and students sign and agree to abide by. I am guessing that this behavior was not aligned with the values of the school and therefore they were asked to leave. Sucks for the kids, but parents need to remember that they are parents and their actions represent more than themselves. am fairly certain that pornography doesn't align with the Christian and/or Catholic values of the school.
Sounds very much like a terms of service for conduct on an AWS or Twitter. If the school wants to kick the family out because of suggestive pictures, I have no problem with it. Then again, I am also OK with AWS kicking Parler off for repeated violations of their code of conduct.
 

Starkbuck

Active member
Sounds very much like a terms of service for conduct on an AWS or Twitter. If the school wants to kick the family out because of suggestive pictures, I have no problem with it. Then again, I am also OK with AWS kicking Parler off for repeated violations of their code of conduct.
Correct. I mean what Catholic or Christian school would want to deal with this headache and have their school associated with behavior that is in direct contrast of their values? Especially since they possess ultimate authority on the admissions of students within the school. If this were a public school then you'd have a bigger issue here.
 

eastisbest

Well-known member
It's always worth forcing them to question if their decisions are value based or historically based. People need that to self-evaluate sometimes. Our closest case was a kid with dreads at the local voucher school. Rule book said no. Mom pushed the issue. Without that push, no one ever looks at their "rules" to evaluate are they really based upon teachings of Christ that still hold or were they just something from a different time. And if not pushing for that reason, hell some will change the rule so they don't lose a football player.

In THIS particular case, I think it would be very important to see the photos before making a decision. :D
 

OhioBobcatFan06

Well-known member
Sounds very much like a terms of service for conduct on an AWS or Twitter. If the school wants to kick the family out because of suggestive pictures, I have no problem with it. Then again, I am also OK with AWS kicking Parler off for repeated violations of their code of conduct.
How about if the parents are homosexuals and the school/cupcake shop says that doesn’t align with their values and terms of service?
 

ProV1

Well-known member
Correct. I mean what Catholic or Christian school would want to deal with this headache and have their school associated with behavior that is in direct contrast of their values? Especially since they possess ultimate authority on the admissions of students within the school. If this were a public school then you'd have a bigger issue here.
I am curious, specifically what value or policy violation did they reference? I looked at the pictures. They are not nude. Certainly not illegal. I was raised a Catholic and am unware of any policy or value involving picture of people in underwear?
 

ProV1

Well-known member
How about if the parents are homosexuals and the school/cupcake shop says that doesn’t align with their values and terms of service?
Well the policy can not be discriminatory. Which raises the question I just posted. Is the school discriminating against underwear wearers? I'm struggling to see what kind of code of conduct she broke.
 

Zunardo

Well-known member
With just the first two photos in the link to go by, I'm guessing the school's objection isn't so much the cleavage or garters as it is with the "parochial plaid" in her outfits.
 

Starkbuck

Active member
I am curious, specifically what value or policy violation did they reference? I looked at the pictures. They are not nude. Certainly not illegal. I was raised a Catholic and am unware of any policy or value involving picture of people in underwear?
I've not read the school policy or handbook, but usually there is a clause in there that allows for interpretation beyond what is explicitly stated. The principal's email seemed to highlight that they felt it was an inappropriate action that was in conflict with what they teach. I am guessing that the disruption to school learning caused by the discovery of knowing someone's mom is doing this is the grounds by which they are able to expel them. The gray area of school disruption is one that allows for a broad interpretation for school administrators.
 

ProV1

Well-known member
I've not read the school policy or handbook, but usually there is a clause in there that allows for interpretation beyond what is explicitly stated. The principal's email seemed to highlight that they felt it was an inappropriate action that was in conflict with what they teach. I am guessing that the disruption to school learning caused by the discovery of knowing someone's mom is doing this is the grounds by which they are able to expel them. The gray area of school disruption is one that allows for a broad interpretation for school administrators.
Seems like a pretty loose policy that could be massively misapplied. " We feel that pictures in underwear are an inappropriate action that is conflict with what we teach". What is it they teach that conflicts with her pictures? At the end of the day, they can bounce the kids for any reason as long is it does not discriminate. Seems to me that her kids would be better off without a school that would cast kids aside based on what is in that article.
 

ayCC!

Active member
It's always worth forcing them to question if their decisions are value based or historically based. People need that to self-evaluate sometimes. Our closest case was a kid with dreads at the local voucher school. Rule book said no. Mom pushed the issue. Without that push, no one ever looks at their "rules" to evaluate are they really based upon teachings of Christ that still hold or were they just something from a different time. And if not pushing for that reason, hell some will change the rule so they don't lose a football player.
The principal "resigned" after that disgraceful $hitshow. That rule isn't enforced anymore, and there haven't been anymore problems regarding it. Dumb rule to regulate a kid's hair, especially since he was apparently Rastafari as well. The way the school handled it was even worse (threatened to escort him out of the building by TPS officer, then expelled kid and his sister, who did nothing wrong).
 

adog

Well-known member
It's always worth forcing them to question if their decisions are value based or historically based. People need that to self-evaluate sometimes. Our closest case was a kid with dreads at the local voucher school. Rule book said no. Mom pushed the issue. Without that push, no one ever looks at their "rules" to evaluate are they really based upon teachings of Christ that still hold or were they just something from a different time. And if not pushing for that reason, hell some will change the rule so they don't lose a football player.

In THIS particular case, I think it would be very important to see the photos before making a decision. :D
You want pics? Watch the video GRAPHIC: Kids expelled from Catholic school over mom selling adult photos (wistv.com)
 

eastside_purple

Well-known member
I have no issue with her doing this, but I mean it’s a Catholic school, of course they are going to judge her. Lol, at the description of her pictures as doing normal mom stuff.

Also, imagine paying to see women on onlyfans. Lolz.
 

TigerPaw

Well-known member
I have no issue with her doing this, but I mean it’s a Catholic school, of course they are going to judge her. Lol, at the description of her pictures as doing normal mom stuff.

Also, imagine paying to see women on onlyfans. Lolz.
IKR? How on earth does a milf make $150k/mo. off stock photos from a JC Penney catalog?

Hey more power to her!!! (guys are pathetic, LOL).
 

ProV1

Well-known member
I have no issue with her doing this, but I mean it’s a Catholic school, of course they are going to judge her. Lol, at the description of her pictures as doing normal mom stuff.

Also, imagine paying to see women on onlyfans. Lolz.
Talk about a collection of zero fun morons. Who would want these nuts teaching their kids, anyway.
 

Puritan

New member
school has every right not to allow that kind of smut in there hallways. i know some will point to the church and alleged past actions involving priests but in my eyes was way overblown. and the church did apologize and tied to make it better. when its a private business or school there are rules. mom could not stop herslef from degeneracy.
 

ProV1

Well-known member
school has every right not to allow that kind of smut in there hallways. i know some will point to the church and alleged past actions involving priests but in my eyes was way overblown. and the church did apologize and tied to make it better. when its a private business or school there are rules. mom could not stop herslef from degeneracy.
Smut? Per another poster, you see more suggestive stuff in catalogs. Yes the Catholic church tolerated criminal behavior exaggerated or not, but that has nothing to do with this.
 

adog

Well-known member
Graphic? If those are the photos that got those kids expelled, that is insane.
I agree, i was kind of thinking that there has to be more pictures as theses sure are not graphic. And onder who the someone was to happen to "find" these pics and why they were on a site like that
 

eastisbest

Well-known member
Well the policy can not be discriminatory. Which raises the question I just posted. Is the school discriminating against underwear wearers? I'm struggling to see what kind of code of conduct she broke.
I don't think underwear are covered in the non-discrimination statutes. Got a link?
 

eastisbest

Well-known member
The principal "resigned" after that disgraceful $hitshow. That rule isn't enforced anymore, and there haven't been anymore problems regarding it. Dumb rule to regulate a kid's hair, especially since he was apparently Rastafari as well. The way the school handled it was even worse (threatened to escort him out of the building by TPS officer, then expelled kid and his sister, who did nothing wrong).
I honestly don't feel the Principal should have felt need to resign. Her job is to enforce policy. Far as I could see, she did that in a fair manner. If the kid was indicating he was refusing to leave, then escort is fair threat. There was no emergency here. Teach the kid to mind the adults and deal with it later.

You say, "the rule isn't enforced anymore." THAT is a problem. Either enforce rules or correct them if they need correcting and enforce the new ones. Looking the other way? GREAT educational policy.

It was the policy that was dated. If the Principal was committed to enforcing the new policy, I see no reason to be forced out or leave on that basis. Find it kind of stupid to force her out if she was amenible to enforcing school policies, old or new because that looks like scapegoating.
 
.
Top