I'm a teacher, and I will be making the following announcement to all my classes tomorrow:

[LetTimmySmoke]

There's a controversy in the media over an assault on a gay student being called a "harmless prank." The student was pinned down, and his hair was forcibly cut. Let me be clear. Neither myself nor any staff at this school consider behavior like that to be a "harmless prank." We consider it assault. Do you understand?.......Do you have any questions?

[SoutherDem]

1. Good for you

I just hope you work for a school that supports you. I could see that getting a teacher fired in some school systems.

[LetTimmySmoke]

2. Not in the bay area.

[Smarmie Doofus]

24. Don't be too sure.

They'd never touch the OP's remarks directly w. a ten foot pole. It would blow up on 'em politically.

But they could go after him or her on some seemingly unrelated pretext.

That seems to be how it works in all PS systems.

Teacher here is bravely going out on a limb, imo.

[Auntie Bush]

58. Another big kick and well deserved Rec.

:kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick:

[snacker]

3. Thank you! n/t

[freshwest]

4. Thank you! You will save lives.

[pacalo]

5. As Clay Aiken said on Ed's show tonight, it's *abuse*.

[pkdu]

6. Thank you

School boards should be asked to support this motion.

[Skittles]

7. honestly, I sould just say assault of a student

it is assault regardless of whether or not the student is male or female, gay or not gay - this person was assaulted because they were "different"

[Cave_Johnson]

66. Agreed...

No need to set aside a special category.

It is against the rules to cut anyone's hair.

In my mind the conversation would go like this.

"Some of you may have seen stories of a student in the 60's who was held down and had his hair cut off. There is debate in the news about whether or not this was a prank or an assault, at the time.

I can assure you that cutting anyone's hair in this school will be treated very seriously and there will be no debate.

Now, onto the civil war"

[MannyGoldstein]

8. Fantastic idea! nt

[alcibiades_mystery]

9. "Neither I nor any other..."

not "Neither myself nor any other..."

Reflexive pronoun (myself) cannot be the subject of a sentence.

[SoutherDem]

10. Really?

She is trying to save lives and you are worried about reflexive pronouns? What he heck is a reflexive pronoun anyway? I haven't thought about those since English 101 back in 1985. We are not all great at English.

[LetTimmySmoke]

13. Yes. I'm a math/science teacher. I'm not a "she" though

[Skittles]

25. who is Timmy?

TELL ME!

[a la izquierda]

30. Maybe Tim Lincecum...

of the SF Giants?
I dunno, just a guess, since the poster said he was from the Bay Area.

[SoutherDem]

34. Sorry I called you a she

It just bothers me when I see someone on DU "grade" posts for spelling and grammar error like we are back in elementary school.

You are trying to make a difference, I don't care if you use the correct reflective pronoun our not.

Not sure why I used she, I was a little irritated and just started typing, I didn't even see who made the post.

[boppers]

71. Spelling an grandma our lost arts.

Why bot her?

[REP]

27. Teachers should model good grammar

One can both warn against abuse and use proper English.

[alcibiades_mystery]

31. Meh

If the OP was about to go on stage with a honking piece of spinach in his teeth, I'd let him know that, too.

What's wrong with helping somebody edit a public statement for correctness before he or she distributes it?

[SoutherDem]

38. I may have taken it the wrong way

When writing on blogs most people are writing off the "cuff" and even if they would normally use correct English will make mistakes.

I will admit English was my worst subject of the big ones, English, Math, Science and History. For me I could have read that 100 times and never would have caught that.

But usually when I hear/see someone correct someone's grammar it usually comes across as condescending, and "better-than-thou". I am from the south and here it is usually someone showing off their education.

I am sorry I took it the wrong way, I apologize.

[Ebadlun]

63. Language is not set in stone

In modern English, 'myself' is used as an emphatic pronoun in the nominative case in certain constructions. There's not much you can do about it, I'm afraid.

The forces that change and shape language are beautiful and fascinating - not to be dully opposed.

[alcibiades_mystery]

64. Not really

As an emphatic, people say "I myself..."

That has always been a perfectly legitimate construction. The reflexive pronouns are also known as emphatic in certain cases, but no case like the one in the OP, where the pronoun simply substitutes for the proper subject.

Certainly, there is a descriptivist (rather than, ahem, prescriptivist) argument to be made that so many people misunderstand the reflexive pronoun today that it can and does function as a subject. But the notion that its function as an emphatic would allow the substitution in the OP is silly. We've always known that reflexive pronouns can add emphasis, but they do so by being added to the proper subject (and similar scenarios), not by substituting for it: He himself brought the coal to newcastle. Not "Himself brought the coal to Newcastle." That's an emphatic usage in the subject slot. "You yourself said that you don't believe it." Not "Yourself said that you don't believe it."

In this case, an emphatic use of the pronoun myself would be perfectly fine as follows:

"Neither I myself nor any staff at this school.."

That's an emphatic usage. "Neither myself nor any other staff..." is a simple incorrect usage, like "Himself brought the coal to Newcastle," and not in the least bit salvaged by calling it emphatic.

[Ebadlun]

67. Incorrect to who?

If enough people use it, it's correct. It's de facto the standard. One thing language is not is logical and consistent.

In this case, a reflexive pronoun can be used with another subject and it sounds right - "Neither myself nor my staff". It just does, because people do it. It wouldn't sound right by itself - "Myself believes". Why? Who knows, but it's the way English is today.

If you disagree, you have to appeal to some sort of higher authority, but which one? The God of English? The only authority for English is people who speak English.

[alcibiades_mystery]

70. Well

I already noted that a descriptivist position would say just that. Yes, if it "sounds right," it's likely because the language has been transformed by sufficient "incorrect" usage such that it loses its "incorrectness." This is neither a new nor an interesting position. So, even though "Himself brought coal to Newcastle" sounds incorrect, and, while it is structurally equivalent to "Neither myself nor my staff did X...," we can still assume that the second will "sound right" to some subset of people, and perhaps one day in the future "Himself brought coal to Newcastle" will also sound right, and etc.

Language is fluid, and blah blah blah. Of course. Yes. Obviously. We all know this.

Here's the problem, in this particular case, if we get off the navel-gazing. In this particular case, we have a teacher issuing what might be considered in some areas a controversial public statement, and one element of it is "incorrect" according to existing understandings of grammar that might be held by the readers. If you showed it to a grammarian, he or she would say, well, yes, that's an incorrect usage of a reflexive pronoun - and certainly not an emphatic, your first failed argument (though, obviously, incorrect only according to existing usage standards that might change, blah blah blah). So, what happens, concretely? The parents who oppose the statement or find it to be a political overstepping of bounds say "I mean, geez, this is a teacher, and he can't even use proper standard English? What is happening to our education system? Teachers issue political statements, but can't teach our kids proper grammar!" And what are you going to say then? Oh, but there is no "standard!" What do you mean by "proper?"

Well, good luck with that, because you just lost the substantive argument to bigoted, homophobic parents, all because the grammar went wrong and you tried to defend it with obscure arguments that make sense to grammarians, but not parents of high school kids. Tell those parents you don't care about "correct usage" because language is fluid. I wish you the best in that endeavor. The problem, put plainly, is not merely grammatical but rhetorical: it costs you way too much to be engaging in arguments about the changing nature of language; you should be engaging the substance.

As for the OP, it costs him nothing to use what currently stands as standard English. If one is issuing a public statement in an educational setting, that public statement should probably use that standard unless there is a rhetorical need not to do so. A public statement on the value of African American Vernacular English, for example, might use AAVE to demonstrate its value. That's fine: the substance and its expression are one and the same. In this case, you lose immediately to the one conservative parent that points out the incorrect usage. It's a silly place to mount to argument for fluid language when so much is otherwise at stake.

[Ebadlun]

73. I think you make some good points

You are arguing that the OP made him/herself a hostage to fortune by using a non-standard construction, which I can kind of see - we'll have to see whether any parent makes an issue of it. I suspect they won't.

But you brought the grammatical issue up in the first place, so it's not me that's failing to engage in the substance in favour of dry linguistic debate.

Also, if the use of 'myself' is intended by the speaker to express emphasis, then it is, de facto, an emphatic nominative pronoun.

[goclark]

11. I know how you feel

From my experience in school administration, I'd talk it over with your Principal first.

Some of the students and the staff members may be talking about the issue.
I hope that there will be "teachable moments."

Wishing you, staff and students have a good day and be glad tomorrow is Friday!

[LetTimmySmoke]

14. I take everything up with my principal first. This will be no exception.

[RobinA]

47. Jesus, Are You Kidding Me?

You have to bring something like this up to your principal? I guess I'm not the only one in a Masters level position who has to get permission to state the the Earth is round.

[Mira]

12. I've been a bit out of the loop and just now see details

if this is what the fuck he did - how can he say he does not remember????????????????????
He's sick.

[msongs]

15. it is actually "battery" not assault nt

[ProfessorGAC]

29. Actually, It's Both

Clearly, you're right about battery because physical force was used, but it was assault as soon as the cornering began.
GAC

[sunnystarr]

32. and a felony when a dangerous weapon is used.

Scissors could certainly be considered a dangerous weapon when used to inflict bodily harm.

[Gregorian]

50. Thank you for pointing this out.

I saw your other posts on this.

I have to admit I never knew what assault was until your posts. I should be embarrassed, but I never needed to know.

[Brigid]

16. This was no "harmless prank."

I think discussing this in class would be a great idea.

[rocktivity]

17. That's ASSAULT AND BATTERY to YOU!

rocktivity

[cherokeeprogressive]

18. Just remember to leave the politics out of it.

Don't preface your announcement with a question about who's been watching the news or not.

I don't agree with teachers discussing partisan politics with young students.

That said, I'm sure you'll make them understand.

[Cali_Democrat]

23. It wouldn't hurt to let the kids know...

that Mitt Romney is the one who allegedly assaulted another individual because of his sexual orientation. You know, Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate for President

[CaliforniaPeggy]

19. Your students are lucky to have you as their teacher.

This is a teachable moment, and you're doing the right thing.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

20. Excellent! "Bout time we started taking back REAL morality

and talking about it. Teach kids (and everyone) the difference between right and wrong--a difference the conservative scum and useful idiots clearly don't understand.

[LibDemAlways]

21. I was in 8th grade in 1966. There was a kid in my class

who was bullied mercilessly. He was a skinny kid who wore sweaters and had thick glasses. He was given a hard time because he was considered a nerd. Back then bullying was simply accepted. There's actually a picture of the boy in the school yearbook having his sweater pulled while he's trying to run away. That was considered funny and appropriate for inclusion in the yearbook. I sometimes think of that kid and the scars he carries around from what must have been a hellish adolescence.

I would like to think we now live in a more enlightened age where that sort of crap simply isn't tolerated. It's not a harmless prank. It wasn't then. It isn't now.

It says a lot about Romney's character that he was a bully and even now can't bring himself to acknowledge the harmfulness of his actions. MIttens reminds me of Tom Buchanan in the Great Gatsby - an arrogant, careless spoiled rich prick lacking any sort of moral compass.

[Historic NY]

28. Exactly.

[Bette Noir]

22. If this happened in a mall, or at a bus stop, those hooligans would have been locked up.

Only because it was at school was it tolerated. It's Lord of the Flies time.

[lamp_shade]

26. K&R and Thank You.

[FSogol]

33. Add: And if anyone EVER puts their dog on the roof of their car and drives to Montreal...

[snot]

35. No need to sermonize; just check the law and state how it would apply to the facts.

I bet that in your state as in most, the indicident would qualify as assault and battery.
Check the law further as to whether it would be considered a misdemeanor, felony, or what.
I'd also check on the effect of the ages of the parties involved -- i.e., I wouldn't want to state it's a felony punishable by imprisonment if in fact the parties were minors not subject to such a severe penalty; on the other hand, it would be perfectly accurate to state what the punishment would be if the parties had not been minors.

[varelse]

36. Thank you (nt)

[glinda]

37. Great! Now if we can stop the Conservatives from "bullying" people publicly we might

get rid of the exact "adults" that are setting the example that bullying is ok.

[Beacool]

39. How do you know the student was gay?

The family released a statement (the man in question died in 2004) that says that there are inaccuracies in what the media reported.

“The family of John Lauber is releasing a statement saying the portrayal of John is factually incorrect and we are aggrieved that he would be used to further a political agenda. There will be no more comments from the family,” she said.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/sister-of-alleged-romney-target-has-no-knowledge-of-any-bullying-incident/

[shagsak]

40. Big ole Kick n Rec!

[ladjf]

41. Nothing wrong with the ethics in your statement. What bothers me is, what course do you teach?

I don't think it is a good idea to intentionally bring up topics that are irrelevant to your designated curriculum.

Trying to teach ethics in all classes may seem like an attractive thing to do. However, where are the lines drawn between what is constructive or disruptive? For example,what if a student asks the teacher whether they are Christians, or heterosexual or in favor of same sex marriage? Topics of this sort should be raised in courses specifically designed to cover such questions.

Flame me if you wish. But, with over 35 years experience as an educator, I believe my opinion
is worth hearing.

[coalition_unwilling]

43. Your opinion is definitely worth hearing, but

I think you are too narrowly construing 'educator' here. This is the proverbial 'teachable moment' and any responsible educator (as I construe the term) will jump at the opportunity, regardless of subject matter.

[ladjf]

45. Thanks for the courteous rebuttal.

I am suspicious that the teacher who wrote the original OP may have been using an obvious
case of human abuse to further their own status in one way or the other. It's a slippery slope
when public educators are allowed to teach ethics along with their assigned subjects. And whose ethics are going to be taught?

[LetTimmySmoke]

62. That's not what we discussed.

What we talked about was what the school policy on assault and bullying is, that we don't consider such acts to be harmless pranks, and assault will be punished to the fullest extent of the law. It was actually quite a short and simple deal in all my classes.

[coalition_unwilling]

42. Thank you, thank you, thank you. I wish you had been my

teacher 35-40 years ago.

[Grammy23]

44. A Few Things About the latest "tid bit" we know about Romney

Again, while he is talking about this incident, he chuckles and laughs through the initial remarks he made. Remember when he was interviewed (some time ago, I think) about the dog incident, he chuckles and laughs his way through that, too. He has a really odd idea about what is humorous and how he should handle these things when he is interviewed. I am sure he couldn't anticipate exactly how the latest episode would be handled in the news, but surely his advisors did have a clue and should have suggested he be more sensitive and apologetic about it from the minute he began discussing it-----not after the story hit the fan and he needed to take a more serious tone about it.

And the second thing that stuck me about his comments were that at that time in his life (mid-60s) was that they didn't notice things like whether someone was "gay" or not. And by the way, back then someone assumed to be homosexual was called queer or fag. So no, gay was probably NOT the word that would have been used, but you can bet your ass we sure did know about those things back then. I graduated high school in 1966 and while we didn't have nearly the understanding about this issue that we do now, we certainly knew something about it. And for him to act like we didn't discuss such things was absolute BS. I very well remember a guy in my class who was very small for his age, bleached his hair almost white and wore it in a style that hung down over his forehead----at a time when having longer hair was really controversial. Remember when boys had to have their hair NOT touch the collar?? Schools had rules about this. And they were enforced, too. Anyhow, this classmate had a twin brother who was the exact opposite of him.....big, burly, football player. Very popular guy. While the other one (the bleached hair guy) was thought odd, out of place and DIFFERENT. EVERYONE one of us knew what the difference was even though we didn't talk about it openly.

So for Mr. Romney to pretend that noticing someone's sexual orientation didn't happen back then is so far fetched that it's laughable. Except for this: The issue of Marriage Equality and FAIRNESS to all American citizens is not laughable and is a serious matter to most of the LGBT community and a sizable portion of the straight folks. Some of us have given this a lot of thought and have come to the conclusion that it's time the USA changed it's policies and attitudes to a significant portion of our population. In the future when all of this has been long settled and is in the history books, we will be viewed as very backward for taking so long to do this. I am sure when they look at this period in history it will look just like some of the coverage from the days of the Civil Rights Movement. Video of attack dogs, fire hoses turned on protesters and hateful mobs showing their prejudices. It makes me ashamed to see that even though I was a kid then and my family was on the right side of that argument---and we lived in Jackson, MS at the time.

Long story short, I think all of this tells us a lot about Mr. Romney's character and also a lot about how he handles a sensitive subject. Do we really want a man for our President who thinks he can talk about assaulting someone (even in his youth) and can chuckle and laugh about it, discounting the seriousness of it and delaying an apology until he is forced to do so?

[WinniSkipper]

46. Then you are an excellent teacher nt

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

48. Neither myself nor any staff at this school ...

Did the staff get together to agree on the announcement? Are all the staff in agreement?

It's a good statement. Maybe all the teachers should announce it.

Good luck!

[Liberalynn]

49. When I was in Catholic School

My fourth grade teacher, a nun, pulled a boy with long hair up in front of the classroom, tied a pink bow in his hair and said if "you want to look like a girl so much, then here do it right." That was in 1970. Glad to see a teacher figthing back against bullying instead of joining the bullies like a number of them did in our grade school.

to you!

[redqueen]

51. We need everyone to acknowledge this.

Thank you.

[countryjake]

52. Kick & Recommend!

[existentialist]

53. legally you are correct

It is an assault.

It is an assault under the criminal law of almost every jurisdiction, and it is also a civil assault under the common law which I doubt has been abrogated anywhere although modified with different particulars from state to state.

[SCantiGOP]

54. this may set a record for recs (nt)

[Initech]

55. Excellent! Every school in the country should treat it as such!!

[spooky3]

56. If the same event had happened on the street, the gang would have been arrested for assault.

Why does Romney think its occurrence in a school make it any less of a crime?

[Uncle Joe]

57. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, LetTimmySmoke.

[Auntie Bush]

59. Sorry. I don't know how to post a picture...but this is Liar,Liar, pants on fire. LOL

http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&sa=N&rls=org.mozilla:en-US fficial&biw=1048&bih=476&tbm=isch&tbnid=ZiwouHZXa7hSeM:&imgrefurl=http://thespecialktreatment.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/liar-liar-pants-on-fire/&docid=GtsN3dMygs9H-M&imgurl=&w=298&h=432&ei=zZ2tT6OSKcyz0QGc6-mRDA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=318&vpy=108&dur=16833&hovh=270&hovw=186&tx=117&ty=182&sig=101476646543975447172&page=1&tbnh=116&tbnw=71&start=0&ndsp=13&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:0,i:132


Just testing...want to see if this works.

[d_r]

60. glad you don't live in Tn.

You can't say gay in school here.

[LetTimmySmoke]

61. I made the (edited and improved) announcement today

The force and zeal with which I gave the announcement impressed my students. (In a good way)

[boppers]

72. How did it go over?

What questions did the students have?

What became the topics of discussion?

[iemitsu]

65. my wife accused me of posting this thread.

all the ingredients fit. a teacher named tim who shared this info with his class today.
but i swear i'm not the OP.

[Zalatix]

68. I have a question

Will the school Principal announce this to all students?

[cr8tvlde]

69. Right on. There is no reason a school can't have a No-Bullying Policy

And as a retired teacher, like to think I'd have done the same. Teachable moments are often what we call Current Events. And they can learn boundaries but the adult has to be firm, fair and clear.

It's going to take one or two well-placed lawsuits to demand/allow the schools to get involved. Educators have to be very careful, or you have lawsuits and the RW Fundies claiming they are recruiting for homosexuals or social engineering or some such drivel. They really, really don't get tolerance...in any form.

But thank goodness it is coming out of the closet and will also benefit those kids who are bullied because of their size, weight, race, color, personality, accent, or country of origin. What often passes for family comedy/sitcoms/MTV et al these days is not respect and tolerance.

That's what assemblies are for, teacher's meetings, and then come up with a Zero Tolerance Policy for Bullying. It's worked for drugs and weapons pretty well. Enough kids have died because they are different. RIP.