A bad apple may not spoil the entire bunch, but it certainly seems that way for a New Jersey high school, which saw all of its football programs canned amid rumours of bullying and hazing. Parents and students are up in arms over the school's seemingly indiscriminate punishment.
Having snared three state championships in the past four years, Sayreville High School was on top of the scoreboard, yet it can now kiss goodbye any dreams of winning after play was cancelled just four games in.
"There were incidences of harassment, intimidation, and bullying that took place on a pervasive level, on a wide-scale level, and at a level in which the players knew, tolerated and, in general, accepted,'' said Sayreville's superintendent, Richard Labbe.
While the police investigate the offences of seniors against freshmen, all three levels of football—varsity, jayvee, and freshman—were cut short, a decision that affects cheerleaders and band members, too.
At this stage, no one has been suspended or charged. Serious allegations deserve a serious inquest, yet parents and students alike are outraged at being penalized for what may turn out to be the actions of a select few.
Parents have called the school's call "devastating" and "unfair." Though I can see how the decision would come as a blow to students who may have been uninvolved, I personally feel that officials are right to come down hard in this case.
Team sports are just that. If charges of harassment and bullying are as grave and pervasive as alleged, then everyone who is part of the "team" has a duty to report what they've witnessed or overheard. Kids need to know that turning a blind eye can be akin to complicity.
Too often schools claim they have a "zero tolerance policy" toward bullying and harassment, yet fail to truly protect the vulnerable when push comes to shove.
You tell me: Was this school right to cancel the rest of the football season?
Is it possible to 'bully proof' your child?
It would have been so easy for a Michigan police officer to slap a fine on a mom whose 5-year-old was caught riding in a car without a booster seat. When Ben Hall pulled over Alexis DeLorenzo, he most likely had one of those Do I, Don't I moments.
Fortunately, instead of giving her a ticket for the infraction, he decided to do something far more useful for all parties involved—he drove to the nearest Wal-Mart and bought the girl a booster seat out of his own pocket.
“A ticket doesn’t solve the situation,” said Hall in an interview. “What solves it is the child being in the booster seat like she should be. It was the easiest 50 bucks I ever spent.”
DeLorenzo was pulled over after someone reported sighting her daughter travelling unsecured in a friend's vehicle. She then explained to the officer that she was having a tough time of it financially and couldn’t afford a booster seat.
Instead of just assuming she was a slack parent, Hall heard her out and decided to help rather than penalizing her further. I wish more law enforcement types took such a compassionate approach and reached out to their community. Not everyone out there is willfully breaking the law. Sometimes circumstance backs you into a corner.
While I don't condone this mom for potentially putting her daughter at risk, I do agree fining DeLorenzo would achieve exactly nothing. You don't punish poverty, after all. A booster seat isn't exactly a luxury item, and I wish there were more initiatives to provide or at least subsidize things like car seats.
DeLorenzo claimed the encounter was nothing short of "life changing" (not to mention life saving). Hall's kindness at a pivotal moment will no doubt stick with her and her daughter for years to come.
You tell me: Did the officer do the right thing in this situation?
Is everyday empathy a dying art? We hope not.
What in the world does climate change have to do with making babies? A lot, according to a Japanese study, which claims global warming is impacting our evolutionary output, so to speak. In layman's terms, fewer boys are surviving.
Researchers found a "statistically significant" link between rising temperatures in recent years and the number of girls and boys being born in Japan. In short, ever since the '70s fewer males have been born and there have been more spontaneous fetal deaths in correlation with temperature fluctuations due to climate change.
Findings published in the journal Fertility and Sterility indicate that although the ratio of male-female offspring is pretty steady around the world, the females tend to be hardier and tend to withstand more environmental stressors, not just limited to extremes in temperature, but also "war and economic hardship."
"There seems to be now very strong evidence suggesting that male fetuses are more vulnerable, in general, to sub-optimal conditions—for example maternal malnutrition or stressful situations," said professor of biological anthropology at Yale University, Claudia Valeggia, who independently reviewed the Japanese study, which echoed other findings hailing from Denmark and Sweden.
So does natural selection tend to favour little girls? Can we expect boys to become endangered over coming decades?
Obviously further studies are needed, in other countries, to corroborate what is nonetheless a fascinating hypothesis. So ladies, no need to fret just yet. Feel free to soak up the sun and get your vitamin D on.
However, if your name is Margaret Atwood and you happen to be reading this, I fully expect you to plumb this study for your next feminist sci-fi tome. Life After Man. The truth is sometimes just as strange as the fiction.
What do you think of this research?
Greenpeace wants you to boycott this toy.
Printer-friendly version