Jump to content

Menu

#IStandWithAhmed


Word Nerd
 Share

Recommended Posts

Yet... apparently we're going too easy on Ahmed. Because he might have misused the word, "invention".

 

No, I said I didn't like that they cuffed him etc.

 

I never said we were too easy on Ahmed.

 

I said we don't have enough objectively sourced information to support all the seething outrage, especially the part that gets personal against individuals who can't defend themselves.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, if my 13 and 15 year old dds had a different answer, would it matter to you?

 

 

I do have to wonder why some are hung up on the word "invention". It seems like a rather lame excuse to not acknowledge what happened.

 

Does it not matter that it wasn't a bomb? Does it not matter that the police have publicly stated it was a clock and not a bomb? What, exactly, is it you're looking for at this point?

 

In my mind the question isn't "did the investigation find him innocent or guilty," but "was the investigation done in good faith or bad faith."  If the investigation was done in good faith, then there is no reason to be outraged, even if he was found innocent.  If the investigation was done in bad faith, then there is reason to be outraged.

 

If all that matters was that the investigation was closed without charges, then what is everyone angry about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK so, to give you guys the benefit of the doubt, I asked my 8yo daughters this question (without any background) as I drove them to our evening destination:  "who can tell me what an invention is?"  My non-STEMmy kid who tests about 100 IQ responded, "It's something you make, that is new, that nobody has ever done before."  So then I said, "if I took apart a clock and put it back together in a different box, would that be an invention?"  "No."  (My kids have not heard of this Ahmed / clock situation so there was no bias there.)

 

So no, I don't think I'm being unreasonable when I say he was fibbing when he called his project an "invention."

 

Your non-STEM kid wouldn't call it an invention.  However, some kids DO call creative projects "inventions", using the word in a different way than your kid would, meaning more along the lines of "this thing I tinkered about with", or "this thing I made" or even "this pretend invention".  Some families are quite comfortable with this use of the word, and this appropriation of typically adult phrasing for more childish activities.  They are respectful of their children's creative "pretend" world, because they know that this kind of play - building, creating, doing adult things at a more childish (possibly pretend) level - is often the beginning stages of what will develop into a more adult way of creating.  The child who "built a house" from LEGO or cardboard or bedsheets didn't really build an actual house, but they did go through a similar process of designing what they wanted, working out construction details (what will we use to hold up the roof blanket?), and addressing any structural/logistical problems that arose (how do we keep the blanket from sliding off the chair backs?).  Blanket-house building may progress to outdoor "fort" building, or "go-kart" building, or the child may move on to other creative endeavors.  A few of the blanket-house builders may even become architects or carpenters.  The child may discuss their activity using the words "I built a house", and their parents may also describe it this way.  If you asked them, they are all, including the child, likely to be aware that the child did not actually build a real house, but that doesn't diminish the value of the activity.  And the child would not be "fibbing" when they said they "built a house" - the child assumes the adult knows the context in which they used the phrase.    

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it wasn't intended to be unhospitable, and people do often ask this when they notice new people, but I'll delete the original comment, as it isn't my desire to be thought of as unhospitable.

 

QueenCat, I thought your post was fine.  If you had intended it rudely, you could have put /sarcasm/ before and after it.   Maybe I'm missing something?  I didn't read anything but kindness and wanting to understand RubberChickenGirl and her frame of reference.  I'm sorry you deleted your post.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK so, to give you guys the benefit of the doubt, I asked my 8yo daughters this question (without any background) as I drove them to our evening destination:  "who can tell me what an invention is?"  My non-STEMmy kid who tests about 100 IQ responded, "It's something you make, that is new, that nobody has ever done before."  So then I said, "if I took apart a clock and put it back together in a different box, would that be an invention?"  "No."  (My kids have not heard of this Ahmed / clock situation so there was no bias there.)

 

So no, I don't think I'm being unreasonable when I say he was fibbing when he called his project an "invention."

 

He said it was a clock. I'm sure he did not believe he had "invented" a clock, which no one else had never done before, nor do I think anyone honestly thinks he was trying to claim that he invented clocks. Seriously...  :huh: :001_rolleyes: :blink: :banghead:

  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my mind the question isn't "did the investigation find him innocent or guilty," but "was the investigation done in good faith or bad faith."  If the investigation was done in good faith, then there is no reason to be outraged, even if he was found innocent.  If the investigation was done in bad faith, then there is reason to be outraged.

 

If all that matters was that the investigation was closed without charges, then what is everyone angry about?

 

People can participate or respond in good faith in inappropriate ways because of systemic racism/other -isms and unexamined biases. It happens all the time and it won't stop unless people call it out and force people to examine their biases. Good faith doesn't make wrong things right. 

 

I don't think the police involved are bad people or racist or anything. I don't know enough about them to say anything about their characters. I don't think they should be vilified , but saying that what they did was inappropriate isn't doing that. I think the outcry in favor of Ahmed, no matter what he did or didn't make, is good because it's forcing those involved to confront their unacknowledged biases and maybe next time they'll react differently. I think if it also helps people reevaluate zero tolerance policies in schools it will be even better.

 

It's not about Ahmed and what he made, said, or did after he was arrested. It's about why the police were called so quickly for any kid- brown, white, or green- who wasn't doing anything illegal. It's about why the police went along with the hysteria and took him into custody and arrested him instead of talking to him and releasing him to his parents immediately. It's about the other kids in other schools who maybe want to show their teachers a science project, and about the police and teachers who need to decide how to respond to these kids of all races, religions, and ethnicities. 

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the investigation was done in good faith, then there is no reason to be outraged, even if he was found innocent.  If the investigation was done in bad faith, then there is reason to be outraged.

 

So to you the intention is what matters and not the outcome. Honestly, I used to think that too, in my 20s, but then I grew out of it and realized that plenty of bad things have been done by people with good intentions.

  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my mind the question isn't "did the investigation find him innocent or guilty," but "was the investigation done in good faith or bad faith."  If the investigation was done in good faith, then there is no reason to be outraged, even if he was found innocent.  If the investigation was done in bad faith, then there is reason to be outraged.

 

If all that matters was that the investigation was closed without charges, then what is everyone angry about?

 

First, asserting that Ahmed "fibbed"--that he was dishonest on purpose--is both unsupported and mean-spirited. There is no evidence for that, at all. That is your personal conjecture.

 

 

Second, closing the investigation without charges is NOT "all that matters."

 

It matters when those in authority abuse their authority.

 

It matters when the police take action that is illegal.

 

It matters to a kid when he is punished publicly in front of all his peers. For that matter, it matters to most adults if that happens to them as well. Ahmed must have felt truly awful handcuffed in that hallway for all to see. 

 

It matters to put a suspension on an innocent kid's academic record.

 

It matters to put an arrest on a person's record. He will have to explain that arrest forever. He will have to explain it to future university and employment prospects.

 

And yes, this has the fingerprints of racism all over it. It matters when adults with power treat a child poorly because of their sinful perceptions based on race and religion.

  • Like 32
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So to you the intention is what matters and not the outcome. Honestly, I used to think that too, in my 20s, but then I grew out of it and realized that plenty of bad things have been done by people with good intentions.

 

The outcome matters, but the intentions matter too.

 

Here, the main outcome was that the kid was investigated briefly, released to his parents, and not charged with a crime.  Some parts of the process were not ideal, and these can be revisited, but Ahmed was not seriously harmed.  Publicity bonuses aside, Ahmed also has the satisfaction of knowing that most Americans want the process to be fair and reasonable in cases like his.

 

The other outcome is that people are being attacked for making a decision to investigate.  This has to be based on assumptions regarding those people's intent or motivation.  Surely nobody is saying it's always wrong to investigate a what appears to a teacher to look like a bomb.  No, people are saying the teacher had to be lying when she said it looked like a bomb, i.e., the teacher acted in bad faith.  The suspected bad faith, attributed to Islamophobia mainly, is the reason for the national outrage, isn't it?  Yet how can it be if intention doesn't matter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only quote I can find that calls him brilliant is from his father.  I don't even think English is his first language, just for the record.

 

"My son is a very brilliant boy," Mohamed said. "We need people like him in this country."

 

Or he could be speaking British English.  'Brilliant' means 'cool' or 'great' here.  I don't know what books the father first learned his English from.  After all, the word just means 'shiny'.

 

I was called 'awesome' yesterday by an American student and I don't know what I had done to inspire awe.

  • Like 28
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or he could be speaking British English. 'Brilliant' meant 'cool' or 'great' here. I don't know what books the father first learned his English from. After all, the word just means 'shiny'.

 

I was called 'awesome' yesterday by an American student and I don't know what I had done to inspire awe.

Heck, the family could have just been binge watching Dr. Who. When I watch David Tennant's episodes I find things "brilliant" more frequently too.
  • Like 15
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Her point (or was it Unsinkable's, I can't remember) was that if a kid is misleading people by saying he invented something he didn't, what else is he lying about?

 

Nobody has yet to explain what else he has said that they now refuse to believe due to this "deceit."

It wasn't me so I'd appreciate it if you'd please take my name out of your post.

 

I did not write about Ahmed's use of invention. Nor did I say he (or anyone else) was deceitful or lying. My posts are about wanting to know the sequence of events to prevent this from happening again, as I've written more than once.

 

So please take my name out of your post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If all that matters was that the investigation was closed without charges, then what is everyone angry about?

 

Because that is not all that matters, as myriad people in this thread have explained.

 

If it were one of your children, one of your precious daughters handcuffed in front of her peers, with an unwarranted arrest now on her record, would you be so blithe about it and believe that all that matters is that she wasn't ultimately charged?

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could point to some pretty angry sounding posts on other threads about CPS investigations that were were closed without charges, and you obviously thought that mattered despite the outcome. No, the situation here isn't the same as the Meitivs' case, but it shouldn't be hard to imagine how people could be angry about this arrest even if you don't think it's a big deal.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wasn't me so I'd appreciate it if you'd please take my name out of your post.

 

I did not write about Ahmed's use of invention. Nor did I say he (or anyone else) was deceitful or lying. My posts are about wanting to know the sequence of events to prevent this from happening again, as I've written more than once.

 

So please take my name out of your post.

 

Yes, if you don't remember who said something, it's not cool to include their name in a post that has nothing to do with them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People can participate or respond in good faith in inappropriate ways because of systemic racism/other -isms and unexamined biases. It happens all the time and it won't stop unless people call it out and force people to examine their biases. Good faith doesn't make wrong things right. 

 

:iagree:  :iagree:  :iagree:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your kids have been following this story (my 10-year-old definitely is), they might be interested in the novel Zero Tolerance, by Claudia Mills. Alex and I are reading it together and it's prompting good discussions. It's about a seventh-grade honors student who accidentally brings her mom's lunch bag, which has a paring knife in it, and then gets suspended and threatened with expulsion for violating the school's weapons policy.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

We want to believe this good-looking, academically promising kid is completely innocent.  That is understandable, but creating a "factual" description of what happened without having anything but the boy's word is not objective.  Trashing various other people based on this unsubstantiated scenario isn't right IMO.  Wait until we have the objective facts before trashing the heck out of schoolteachers.

 

(And no, they don't always evacuate schools even when someone calls in a clear bomb threat.  They used to make us all go sit in the gym while they had sniff dogs go around looking for bombs.  It was always a hoax, and everyone knew that, so it would have been silly to make everyone go outside every time.  That would also encourage the hoaxers to do it again, since disruption was what they were after.)

 

Completely innocent in the sense that he was not charged with a crime. The difference is that people are trashing the boy without taking any facts into context. So what if he did only reassemble the clock? So what if his father is an activist? So what if they sue the school district? SO WHAT IF IT'S A PLANNED OUT HOAX and everyone reacted exactly as they as hoped?  It really changes nothing in the story. The kid didn't have a bomb, never said he had a bomb, no one ever thought it was a bomb. 

 

Re evacuating schools:  What they used to do is not what they do now. 

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could point to some pretty angry sounding posts on other threads about CPS investigations that were were closed without charges, and you obviously thought that mattered despite the outcome. No, the situation here isn't the same as the Meitivs' case, but it shouldn't be hard to imagine how people could be angry about this arrest even if you don't think it's a big deal.

 

I know.  It was a rhetorical question.  Of course the intent matters, and that is why some of us want to hear the other side of the story - the side of the people who reported the box to the police in the first place.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know.  It was a rhetorical question.  Of course the intent matters, and that is why some of us want to hear the other side of the story - the side of the people who reported the box to the police in the first place.

 

 

Well, we know the police said that there was no evidence that he made a hoax bomb. So...what exactly could the school say to justify that it was one? And even if they did say that, the police disagree. 

 

No one thought it was a bomb. (as shown by their actions and by the fact that he was arrested for a hoax bomb, not a bomb.) And there is, according to the police chief, NO EVIDENCE that he was trying to perpetuate a hoax. So what on earth could the school say to make this okay?

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, we know the police said that there was no evidence that he made a hoax bomb. So...what exactly could the school say to justify that it was one? And even if they did say that, the police disagree. 

 

No one thought it was a bomb. (as shown by their actions and by the fact that he was arrested for a hoax bomb, not a bomb.) And there is, according to the police chief, NO EVIDENCE that he was trying to perpetuate a hoax. So what on earth could the school say to make this okay?

 

People keep saying this.  "What could they possibly say to explain themselves?"  Well, there are all sorts of things they could say.  If I suggest a few possibilities, I will be accused of making up stuff on no evidence, so why bother?

 

I don't understand the vehement denial of the accused's right to be heard.  I thought that was some part of the American principles of justice, but perhaps I was mistaken.

 

I would like to hear their side.  Maybe it wouldn't change anyone's mind.  Maybe it would make things worse for the school - and if that is the case, should we not hear it so we can protest what specifically, factually happened?  Maybe it would explain some things that currently have many people scratching their heads.

 

Nobody is suggesting Ahmed should have been charged and thrown in the slammer, so what is the danger in hearing the school's side of the story?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't understand the vehement denial of the accused's right to be heard.  I thought that was some part of the American principles of justice, but perhaps I was mistaken.

 

 

The accused is Ahmed and not the police or school employees. He is being heard and most people are supporting him. The power of the police and teachers, the authority they have and the ability they have to destroy people's lives, which is way more powerful than anything Ahmed could say with his mouth, makes the situation different than a he said/she said among equals. 

 

We(I) don't care what the other side is because it's obvious they overstepped and we are all subject to the same overreaction and missteps by authorities, so we want to call it out and rein back the power to protect ourselves and people we care about. IMO, this issue isn't just about Ahmed but about power, conflict, and people's frustrations with schools and others in authority repeatedly violating people's rights or the law and then essentially saying, "My bad...."

 

Also, there's no responsible way for those in power to share their side of the story at this point. They've already said that Ahmed did nothing wrong and released him. Anything said in defense of themselves would only serve to publicly damage the reputation of a child, and as adults, they should not do that just to make themselves feel or look better. I actually have more respect for them for keeping their mouths shut. It doesn't matter if he had a sassy mouth (and I've no reason to think he did; just an example), and what would be the point of some teacher saying he did? 

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The police said there was no evidence to support the theory that Ahmed intended to cause alarm and that he was only showing his teachers his homemade experiment.  Therefore, any suggestion that the school might have something contrary to say is unfounded speculation. The only appropriate response for the school would be to apologize to Ahmed and his family.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What facts are people here declaring? Is it a fact that the teacher put the clock away for a few hours? Is it a fact that the engineering teacher knew it wasn't a bomb or a hoax? Is it a fact that the school chose not to evacuate ?

 

  • We don't know about the teacher putting the clock away or for how long.  In a video Ahmed states that they took the clock from him when he was taken to talk to the police.  So two different stories from the Ahmed team.  Who knows what the facts are?
  • We haven't heard from the engineering teacher.  As far as we know, the English teacher and the cops also didn't hear from the engineering teacher before Ahmed was released to his parents.  As far as we know, Ahmed didn't mention to them that he had shown the engineering teacher etc.  That's what the police report indicates.
  • The oft-repeated declaration that "nobody ever thought it might be a bomb."  That's not what the police report says.  In fact, that's not even what Ahmed says.
  • True, they did not evacuate.  Why?  Perhaps the school's answer to that question would be interesting.  Here's a guess:  perhaps they didn't want the entire school to get hysterical over something a Muslim kid had in his backpack without checking a little further.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

True, they did not evacuate.  Why?  Perhaps the school's answer to that question would be interesting.  Here's a guess:  perhaps they didn't want the entire school to get hysterical over something a Muslim kid had in his backpack without checking a little further.

 

 

Right. They totally though it might be a bomb, so sat around and thought about it for a bit, hoping it wouldn't go off. That would explain everything. 

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are hundreds of situations where someone thought something might be a bomb, the article was confiscated and examined, it was determined to not be a bomb, everyone moved on.

 

So far this is the first time I've heard that it's an outrage to look further before deciding whether or not an uncertain object might be a bomb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one is saying it's an outrage to look further. People are saying it's an outrage for the police to question a child while illegally denying him access to his parents and then arrest him (in front of his whole school) with no evidence. Had they "looked further" and determined it was not a bomb, not a hoax bomb, and left it at that, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are hundreds of situations where someone thought something might be a bomb, the article was confiscated and examined, it was determined to not be a bomb, everyone moved on.

 

So far this is the first time I've heard that it's an outrage to look further before deciding whether or not an uncertain object might be a bomb.

and in those situations the bomb squad is called. The people in the vincinity are evacuated, etc. No one sits around talking about it while in possible danger. 

 

And if they thought it was a bomb they would have arrested him for a bomb, not arrested him for a hoax bomb. 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are hundreds of situations where someone thought something might be a bomb, the article was confiscated and examined, it was determined to not be a bomb, everyone moved on.

 

So far this is the first time I've heard that it's an outrage to look further before deciding whether or not an uncertain object might be a bomb.

The bomb squad examines it. Usually they do a controlled detonation. They don't carry it around with them in a school full of children.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly tried to read most of the posts here, but couldn"t get through it all. I think everyone should wait for all of the reports to be released, and then decide.

This seems staged, and honestly, not very subtly staged.

 

The police held a press conference and said there was no evidence he tried to do what he was accused of. You don't believe them?

  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly tried to read most of the posts here, but couldn"t get through it all. I think everyone should wait for all of the reports to be released, and then decide.

This seems staged, and honestly, not very subtly staged.

 

Staged by whom? You think he planned to get arrested? The teachers and police were in on it too, I suppose?

  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK so, to give you guys the benefit of the doubt, I asked my 8yo daughters this question (without any background) as I drove them to our evening destination:  "who can tell me what an invention is?"  My non-STEMmy kid who tests about 100 IQ responded, "It's something you make, that is new, that nobody has ever done before."  So then I said, "if I took apart a clock and put it back together in a different box, would that be an invention?"  "No."  (My kids have not heard of this Ahmed / clock situation so there was no bias there.)

 

So no, I don't think I'm being unreasonable when I say he was fibbing when he called his project an "invention."

 

Did you read my previous post?  8 years old is a lot younger than 14.  I'm guessing they are not on instagram or other social media looking at pictures posted by early to mid teens.  I have 13 and 15 year olds.  It is very common for kids that age to post a picture of something on instagram that is very much not invented by them and for them to say they "invented" whatever it is.  No, they are not using the dictionary definition of the word, but many kids use it that way.

 

Re evacuating schools:  What they used to do is not what they do now. 

 

 

Perhaps this should be what they do in some places is not what they do in others.  They still evacuate just like they did when I was a kid in the schools where I grew up.

 

There are hundreds of situations where someone thought something might be a bomb, the article was confiscated and examined, it was determined to not be a bomb, everyone moved on.

 

So far this is the first time I've heard that it's an outrage to look further before deciding whether or not an uncertain object might be a bomb.

 

It's not an outrage at all to look further.  The outrage is in handcuffing and interrogating a kid before looking further.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Re evacuating schools:  What they used to do is not what they do now. 

 

 

Perhaps this should be what they do in some places is not what they do in others.  They still evacuate just like they did when I was a kid in the schools where I grew up.

 

 

She had stated that, no, they did not always evacuate schools for bomb threats when she was in school, using that as a possibility why this school was not evacuated.

 

SKL was in school a long time ago, and I replied that what(ever) they used to do (i.e., not evacuating) is not what is done now.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She had stated that, no, they did not always evacuate schools for bomb threats when she was in school, using that as a possibility why this school was not evacuated.

 

SKL was in school a long time ago, and I replied that what(ever) they used to do (i.e., not evacuating) is not what is done now.

 

Maybe things were different where SKL went to school (rather than "when" she went to school,) or perhaps it was a regional thing? I only say that because I'm 52 and they always evacuated our schools and called in the bomb squad whenever someone called in a bomb threat. Thankfully, there was never a real danger to anyone, but they never took any chances.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe things were different where SKL went to school (rather than "when" she went to school,) or perhaps it was a regional thing? I only say that because I'm 52 and they always evacuated our schools and called in the bomb squad whenever someone called in a bomb threat. Thankfully, there was never a real danger to anyone, but they never took any chances.

I'm 40 and they evacuated mine too for a bomb threat and annual drills. Once for a senior prank involving fireworks in the boys' locker room. How long ago did bombs not blow up buildings? That's not exactly newfangled weaponry.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...