8_6_02_prblow_her_head

Blow her Brains Out! This is Public School

By Rabbi David Eidensohn

What do you do with a fifteen-year-old student who paints a picture showing how he shoots a female police officer's brains out? According to CNSNews (8:5:02::Jessica Cantelon), a case regarding a California student who did just this is going through the courts. An art student was angry at a police officer who cited him for marijuana possession, and so in art class, Ryan D. drew a picture of how he shot her with a pistol and her blood and head pieces flew away. Lest anyone mistake who the victim was in the painting, Ryan painted the correct police badge number. One court found that the student was guilty of terrorism. A higher court reversed and said that this was not terrorism. Defense attorney James Webster said, "Schools should look for alternatives to litigation when confronted with offensive students. Kick the kid out, get him out of the school, get him away from there ... but you don't throw him in jail."

The question in this litigation is how to deal with the boy who painted the threatening picture. Should he, as the prosecution wishes, be sent to jail, or should he, as his defense lawyer suggested, be sent away from school? Are any of these options ideal, or even appropriate? Should a boy who did such a thing be sent to jail as a terrorist? We wish that all terrorists would merely paint pictures, instead of bombing buses. Therefore, to consider this terrorism is questionable. On the other hand, the female police officer is afraid, and she should be. People who talk threats or violence and certainly people who go to such lengths as painting a picture about it and presenting it to their teacher have a lot on their mind. In our day and age, especially in a public school system that is held together with a mob of armed police officers, this is significant and scary. Should such a dangerous kid be sent away? Would he not then become even more dangerous? Who could prevent him from returning with a gun?

The issue here is not a legal one; it is an educational one. Can a school survive when it must drag such a serious situation for years into the court system? Education, and family as well, can only survive properly when a challenge to authority is dealt with quickly in a manner to let things continue as if nothing major happened. To make a big deal out of disruption is to disrupt. How would biblical schools handle such a problem?

In our previous article, Rape, Religion and Slaves, we compared the prison system with biblical whipping and "slavery," a form of working. We asked if a prisoner would rather sit in jail for ten years getting raped by people with AIDS, or get a few whacks and go home to his family. The answer is obvious. Forcing a person to be without sex for years is cruel and unusual punishment. Whipping him is only cruel by modern convention. Indeed, whippings are the perfect form of social, family and educational justice. The disruptive person is punished quickly, is able to finish with his ordeal without undue duration, and everyone returns quickly to normal.

If such a young boy as the one who painted the picture blowing out the brains of a police officer was given a good spanking, especially one in public, he would not feel so high and mighty, and he would quickly resolve his guilt with society, and continue as a good citizen. A beating brings out a humility that does not co-exist with shooting people. More important, if the school itself had such a policy, children would learn some respect, and not end up determined to punish adults who call them for evil deeds.

A society that considers a few physical blows "cruel and unusual punishment" then goes to another extreme and makes jails where one in ten is sexually assaulted and one in five is raped. What of the ladies in jail who are now pregnant against their will? Is this not cruel and unusual punishment? The lady wished she had a few whippings under doctor's supervision instead of the brutal rape some guard performed on her, a trauma that will never leave her.

Speaking of rape, we come to Brandeis University, and another interesting court case. Again, just as in the California case, a young male student is tied up in litigation for years. Instead of going on with his life, he is busy working on one trial after another, up and up a hugely expensive legal system. The very facts of the case bespeak a system that is utterly deleterious to normal people. A young man David Arlen S., called his girl friend, and then went to her room. They kissed, and he wanted more. She was not interested. He left, and she went to sleep. She woke up with him in her bed having intercourse. She reported him to the college. The college thereupon made an investigation, and concluded that David should leave the college for four months. He sued, claiming that his rights were violated, and one court agreed, and the other reversed, exactly as happened in the California case. This confusion in schools, and the inability to deal with serious student mischief, is itself a major problem. The other problem is, why is this not plain criminal rape? The college sent him away to protect the woman from another rape, but did not deal with his attack upon her as criminal, nor did it punish him for it in proportion to the crime.

Brandeis ruled that for raping a woman while she slept, David had engaged, not in rape, but in "unwanted sexual activity." It also found that he had "created a hostile environment," meaning, obviously, that she feared him. The college then suspended him for four months. If this had been a biblical environment, such a boy would have gotten much worse, but in a secular college scene, a woman is bereft of protection from such rape. On the other hand, a biblical environment would not have men and women in the heat of their youthful biology kissing each other, as this can only lead to trouble. Therefore, the college environment itself, actually, the girls, invite trouble. If you kiss a young man before he goes to sleep, you may get raped. The college obviously agreed with this logic, as no criminal charges were pressed. What the boy did was merely a benign "unwanted sex." Pity the women who go to college. Speaking of women in college, we come to another college, Harvard, and another college rape-related court case.

Federal Civil Rights officials are investigating Harvard University for discriminating against women. The Associated Press, on August 6, 2002, reports that Harvard decided to insist that women who charge men with sexual crimes produce corroborating evidence. This is seen as discrimination against women. What does the Office of Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education want from Harvard? Does it insist that women can get men punished without proof of a crime? When we get to a point that Harvard University, doing something accepted by its faculty and administration, is considered discrimination against women, we are surprised. We should not be. Women cannot live in a college if they play by the rules. They cannot survive in colleges after they graduate, as we will soon discuss. Women must bend the rules, and this means that men must suffer unjustly. Otherwise, it is "discrimination."

If Harvard would accept biblical rules, and prohibit boys and girls from having heavy sex, we would not have these problems. Girls are constantly giving boys what only married men are supposed to have. They excite boys who are in fervent biological heat. What will happen? Of course, not every boy can control himself. So what can be done? Since these assaults take place in private places, in the middle of the night, there are few witnesses, or only circumstantial inferences. If a woman has to bring proof, she is cooked. Therefore, to survive in college, and continue having florid sex, she needs the right to accuse a boy and have him thrown out of school, without any proof. Harvard refuses this. How amazing, but how understandable, that the government considers Harvard to be discriminating. The liberal, anti-biblical world is so confused. Harvard discriminates?

This brings us to another sad story about women, and once again, we thank the liberal secularists who taught women that they must have lives like men, and try to squeeze the women in somehow when nobody is noticing. An article in the New York Times on August 4, 2002, discusses "Baby Bias."

Women who want to become professors have serious problems with babies. It can ruin their career. Professors usually get their degrees at age 34, and then put in about six years to get tenure, when the good money arrives. If they don't get tenure, they are essentially fired, and must live on small salaries wherever they can. For a man, these six years are periods where he devotes full time to his career, and pleases the committee that will recommend tenure. A woman who wants to have a baby has a serious problem. She is thirty-four, and her fertility is declining. By age forty, when she must find tenure, her fertility is almost gone. She must therefore combine parenting and seeking tenure. However, the colleges do not fail to notice that she cannot put in the same time as a man, and they often reject her. The article was about seeking solutions for this, but there is no real solution. Having a career in college and a baby are not compatible, for the mother or the college. If the mother brings the baby to college, it is not compatible for the baby either, and if the baby grows up with a babysitter, that is not the best option, as well.

Therefore, women have a hard time in college. So, what else should they do?

Women are frustrated by a system that boxes them in at every turn. When they are young, they must dodge the sexual minefields, and please boys enough to be accepted, and avoid rape. There is no way to do this. When they seek careers in college, their tenure is threatened by their motherly instincts. If they go into corporate careers, they may get into a fast track and go far in the business world, and yet lose the struggle for fertility, and perhaps, even marriage. You can't be a hard driving man all day in business and be a pleasing woman in the evening.

Our article has painted a picture of America anguished by its unnatural school and college environment. These issues are likely to become worse before they become better. Because they have no solutions, they are festering frustrations that can only poison the well of gender relationships, and increase the violence and unhappiness endemic in America. Marriage will surely decline, as indeed, we find in a recent study by Gallup (July 22-24 2002) entitled Americans' Lifestyles: Marital Status.

According to the poll, most adult Americans are not married, only 49% to be exact. Eight percent are living with a partner, and the rest, live alone. The majority of adult Americans are not married! Various studies and articles have shown that men, fed up by the judicial pounding they take during the divorces that are so prevalent, refuse in increasing numbers to marry. They are also fed up by the impossible roles assigned to genders in America. Men must not be men. Women must not be women. Children are taught to assert themselves, instead of being molded by parents. So, who needs it?

The poll reports that of today's adults, one-fifth reports never marrying. Of people over fifty only five percent were never married. We thus have a situation whereby eighty percent of adults marry, about half divorce, and less than half are now married. When we realize that people under fifty are four times as likely to reject marry as people over fifty, we see that an explosion of gender destruction is upon us. It will only get worse. As long as the secularists insist on taking our children and ruining them, what can we expect?