#IStandWithAhmed

[DragonFaerie]

So I guess I had better tell my kids to ask for me if things ever get sticky at school.  That's good to know.

 

I had that conversation with my kids yesterday.

[EmseB]

So I just read an article that said Ahmed didn't even "invent" or make a clock...he just took one apart and put the components in the lock box (color me stupid again for thinking a digital face and circuitry looks like one of those ever elusive "suspicious devices"). Someone went to the trouble of looking at the photo and what was actually in the case. But Ahmed kept calling it his invention...So is he claiming to have invented or built some kind of clock, or was he just carrying the innards around in a case to show his science teacher? Not to squash the kid's curiosity, but it seems like taking apart a clock and putting it in a different box and calling it his invention seems juvenile...like something in the 8-10-12yo range. Maybe y'all are right and the state of STEM ed is really bad if this kid is the cream of the crop and he's pretending to "invent" a clock for fun and thinking that an engineering teacher would think it was amazing. Wouldn't 14 be an age where's you'd be putting something like that together yourself and then showing that to the teacher? Maybe that is why he got such a blase weird response from the engineering teacher. Until some one was like, "why did he put a clock in a box?"...and then the administration went full stupid from from there?

 

ETA: I'm assuming the English teacher was smart enough to know it wasn't a bomb, but it was disrupting class so she took it away (a la any class disrupting object like a phone, tamagotchi, or in my day, Binaca) and then she didn't know what it was and when she asked administration everyone got way too overzealous.

 

And, again, I don't think this is a post 9/11 issue for the schools. I think this is a post Columbine, Sandy Hook, VT world for them in their overreactions and obvious stupidity about how to handle this.

[Murphy101]

Idk. It is not unusual or immature to take components of a device to deconstruct and then reconstruct in a similiar manner or for completely different purposes. This is actually a very common way to figure something out. To take it apart and then recreate it.

 

I don't think it is a major genius achievement to do this with a clock if they are over age 8 or 10.

 

But I also don't think it is immature to do it whenever someone starts this learning process and it's very normal for them not to do so until middle school or early high school.

 

To some extent, we all have to start sometime but at the same place so to speak. If he has only recently found it interesting because he has only recently had access to an engineering class, then I don't think it is immature to start with the basics.

 

So. Idk. Does it matter? Does anyone think he invented digital clocks instead of meaning he made one?

[Corraleno]

But Ahmed kept calling it his invention...So is he claiming to have invented or built some kind of clock, or was he just carrying the innards around in a case to show his science teacher? Not to squash the kid's curiosity, but it seems like taking apart a clock and putting it in a different box and calling it his invention seems juvenile...like something in the 8-10-12yo range. 

 

I haven't seen any interviews where he refers to the clock as an "invention." He says he wants to be an inventor when he grows up and he has talked about an invention he's working on that involves magnets (he mentioned this in the press conference), but I haven't seen him call the clock itself an invention. 

[Guest]

I haven't seen any interviews where he refers to the clock as an "invention." He says he wants to be an inventor when he grows up and he has talked about an invention he's working on that involves magnets (he mentioned this in the press conference), but I haven't seen him call the clock itself an invention. 

 

Plus it's pretty obvious he did not invent clocks.

[fraidycat]

It wasn't an "invention" - clocks have been "invented" for a long time. He built his clock, though. Did he use parts from another clock? Maybe. Who cares? He still did something with those bits and pieces to construct his unique version of a digital clock.

[Ravin]

That's the thing (not that there's just one thing that aggravates me about this whole mess): I haven't read that anyone actually thought it was a bomb, including the teacher who raised the alarm. He was arrested because they suspected he was trying to make people think it was a bomb, even though he kept saying it was a clock.

This is what's known in law as "lack of reasonable suspicion."

[Ravin]

There is a distinct, legal difference between "arrested" and "charged." The police decided they had probable cause to arrest him while they determined whether or not there was enough evidence that he was trying to carry out a hoax. Police officers do not have to obtain every single bit of evidence before an arrest is made, they only need probable cause. The purpose of arrest in these circumstances is to remove the risk to the general public and to prevent flight.

 

The police had evidence. They had a clock and they had his statement that it was a clock. They arrested him in the process of determining intent, which would then determine whether or not they charged him with a carrying out a hoax. When they arrested him, they didn't intend to charge him with bringing a bomb to school or making a bomb - they knew it wasn't a bomb. At the time of his arrest, they knew that if there was a charge, it would be for carrying out a hoax, not for building a bomb.

 

Do I think he should have been arrested? No, I think the situation could have been handled in a much different, better way. I think the officer who indicated his assumptions about the student when the student entered the room should have been taken off of the investigation immediately because it seems to me that he had a pre-existing racial/ethnic/religious prejudice. I think had the parents been contacted much earlier in the process and had all parties communicated clearly by asking the right questions and giving complete answers, then it would have turned out very differently. Under the circumstances, I don't blame the student at all for not elaborating on his "It's a clock" statement without a parent and/or attorney present. The police should have realized they were not going to get the information they needed and called the parents in much sooner in the process. That would have facilitated communication on both sides of the story.

These circumstances as reported did not constitute probable cause. At all. And even if there was probable cause, they should have gotten a warrant because there were no exigencies present.The whole thing was a ridiculous miscarriage of justice, unless there's some fact they didn't uncover but known to police, which I frankly doubt.

[BrookValley.]

Showed the photo to law enforcement in our local area. All said bomb first when I asked what it was. None of them knew about this story. (Those of us who work twelves on the night shift rarely know what is going on in the world.)

So what? The issue isn't about whether anyone at the school thought it was a bomb. They knew it wasn't a bomb.

[Guest]

Showed the photo to law enforcement in our local area. All said bomb first when I asked what it was. None of them knew about this story. (Those of us who work twelves on the night shift rarely know what is going on in the world.)

 

To properly conduct this exercise, you should have had a 14 year old kid show it to them in a school and tell them it was clock.

[Halftime Hope]

https://youtu.be/3mW4w0Y1OXE  

 

Two important notes from his own words:

 

The boy does refer to his contraption as an invention.  It would not be surprising to me that the subtleties of "invention" vs. "re-homing the clock mechanism" might be lost on him.  He's 14.  If it is truly "an invention," what does it do, other than what he said, "It's a clock?"  (It kind of gets to the meaning of "invention" (n.).)

 

He knew it would arouse suspicion.  See 1:28.  He took steps to minimize the threat-appearance of it. He knew, at least to some degree, that he might be crossing boundaries.  Pretty typical immaturity, if one believes that *all this is* is a young kid doing something ill-advised.

 

Given who his father is, I'm not buying that it was *just* a young teen acting unwisely.  His father is very astute; very media-saavy, and has chosen to be in the (hopefully) national and international limelight multiple times.  I suspect more than meets the eye, if only to garner attention and better schooling for the kid.

 

In the context of the family's community, it was a really, really, stupid thing to do.  Irving had two sharia-based honor murders a couple years back and has a sharia court.  I don't know if this family identifies with the same group of Islamic people behind the court, but it's a tense situation, and a little more prudence would have helped, unless he *wanted* the attention. 

[Free]

Not to squash the kid's curiosity, but it seems like taking apart a clock and putting it in a different box and calling it his invention seems juvenile...like something in the 8-10-12yo range. Maybe y'all are right and the state of STEM ed is really bad if this kid is the cream of the crop and he's pretending to "invent" a clock for fun and thinking that an engineering teacher would think it was amazing.

 

Or maybe he just used a word incorrectly? That can happen you know.

[Guest]

I'm sure its super likely the 14 year old wanted to be arrested for the attention.

 

And yanno, even if someone wants to be arrested, the police still don' have the right to do it UNLESS THEY DO SOMETHING WRONG/ Derp.

 

And get a grip because no place in the US has "sharia courts."

[ChocolateReignRemix]

https://youtu.be/3mW4w0Y1OXE  

 

Two important notes from his own words:

 

The boy does refer to his contraption as an invention.  It would not be surprising to me that the subtleties of "invention" vs. "re-homing the clock mechanism" might be lost on him.  He's 14.  If it is truly "an invention," what does it do, other than what he said, "It's a clock?"  (It kind of gets to the meaning of "invention" (n.).)

 

He knew it would arouse suspicion.  See 1:28.  He took steps to minimize the threat-appearance of it. He knew, at least to some degree, that he might be crossing boundaries.  Pretty typical immaturity, if one believes that *all this is* is a young kid doing something ill-advised.

 

Given who his father is, I'm not buying that it was *just* a young teen acting unwisely.  His father is very astute; very media-saavy, and has chosen to be in the (hopefully) national and international limelight multiple times.  I suspect more than meets the eye, if only to garner attention and better schooling for the kid.

 

In the context of the family's community, it was a really, really, stupid thing to do.  Irving had two sharia-based honor murders a couple years back and has a sharia court.  I don't know if this family identifies with the same group of Islamic people behind the court, but it's a tense situation, and a little more prudence would have helped, unless he *wanted* the attention. 

 

You do know a "sharia court" in the U.S. has no formal legal standing and can only be used for arbitration, right?  And that they are no different than various Christian arbitration services that are offered?  There are also Jewish "courts" that do the same thing.

 

[EmseB]

 

So. Idk. Does it matter? Does anyone think he invented digital clocks instead of meaning he made one?

 

Well, it seemed like he thought so because he was calling it his invention.  Maybe he just doesn't know what an invention is?  The last headline I saw on it talked about him creating a clock.  Even you just said "he made one".  But taking my nightstand clock out of its plastic case and putting it in a different case isn't really creating anything.  It sort of just reminded me of my oldest when he puts leaves over a spot on the patio and calls it his "booby trap", or draws a bunch of lines and comes to show me "his diagram", or other "battle plans" and such.  Or when he is stirring up his dinner and then tells me he made soup.  But he's 7, so, yaknow it doesn't seem that weird to me when he pretends to make stuff.  But I could totally see him bringing that to an engineering teacher and the teacher saying, "ooookay".

 

I mean, I certainly wouldn't want to squash this kids interest in opening up clocks, but there were at least a few posts that relegated his tinkering and pretending to a pretty high pedestal of keeping us all safe and being the future and all that.  That and two competing sentiments of "It's just a clock, stop freaking out," and on the other hand he's become the poster boy for STEM education because he "made" a clock.

[EmseB]

Or maybe he just used a word incorrectly? That can happen you know.

 

It can.  Maybe that's the real indictment of his English teacher -- not enough vocabulary study.  ;)

[EmseB]

It wasn't an "invention" - clocks have been "invented" for a long time. He built his clock, though. Did he use parts from another clock? Maybe. Who cares? He still did something with those bits and pieces to construct his unique version of a digital clock.

 

 

No, this wasn't using parts from another clock.  It was taking a clock out of one case (the one it was bought in) and putting it in another box.  Anyway, I'm sure that no one cares that kids do that sort of stuff and try to pass it off as their own work, and I guess it doesn't matter (because it was just a clock), it just made the whole thing weirder.  He took a clock and put it in a case.  Then he carried it around school to show to people (or just the one teacher?) and set the alarm off during English class (reading that made me not surprised it got confiscated at all).  But maybe the engineering class is just starting to teach how to open things up or something like that.  It is still the beginning of the school year.

 

At any rate, yes I know clocks have been around for awhile.  But, I didn't realize that what he had wasn't an invention because that was how Ahmed referred to it himself.  I thought he had made something, put something together, invented something, put a new twist on a clock with some kind of new alarm or whatever.  I was mistaken, apparently because I only went by what he was saying and what the headlines were talking about.

 

ETA: Which, by the way makes the whole detention thing even more ridiculous, because the kid literally had a clock you could buy at the store in a black case you can get at hobby shops.  I mean, maybe everything escalated, because why would you put the innards of a clock in a box and carry it around?  Maybe they really were dumbfounded by that and stupidly decided it needed some kind of investigation.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I don't understand what you have against this boy.

 

This case really isn't about the boy himself.  What he did was not illegal.  What he did was not against school rules as far as I can tell since that was never cited as an issue.  What it is about is the adults in this situation behaving unprofessionally and in a way that escalated things instead of dealing with them calmly and sensibly.  People have already pointed out that it was an adult who could have stopped things at the very beginning by keeping the clock and not allowing it to be a distraction.  It's not like no adult knew about it.  It was an adult who could have stopped things in the English class by keeping the clock and not allowing it to be a distraction - which it looked like the English teacher tried to do initially.  Who knows, maybe someone did an end run around her in the principal's office.  If so, it wouldn't be the first time something like that has happened.  It was an adult who decided to escalate this to the police.  It was adult  police officers who played into the charade and did not follow the law with regard to a minor.  Whether the boy was immature or not is immaterial.  He's a teen boy - they are known to still be growing esp. with regards to decision making.  

[Sneezyone]

I don't understand what you have against this boy.

 

This case really isn't about the boy himself. What he did was not illegal. What he did was not against school rules as far as I can tell since that was never cited as an issue. What it is about is the adults in this situation behaving unprofessionally and in a way that escalated things instead of dealing with them calmly and sensibly. People have already pointed out that it was an adult who could have stopped things at the very beginning by keeping the clock and not allowing it to be a distraction. It's not like no adult knew about it. It was an adult who could have stopped things in the English class by keeping the clock and not allowing it to be a distraction - which it looked like the English teacher tried to do initially. Who knows, maybe someone did an end run around her in the principal's office. If so, it wouldn't be the first time something like that has happened. It was an adult who decided to escalate this to the police. It was adult police officers who played into the charade and did not follow the law with regard to a minor. Whether the boy was immature or not is immaterial. He's a teen boy - they are known to still be growing esp. with regards to decision making.

I think, in general, people want to believe those with authority exercise it wisely so they give these 'authorities' the benefit of any doubt, at all times. To me these figures are human and fallible, with the same biases and flaws that we all have, subject to the same scrutiny we'd all face. I wish there was more willingness on the part of these folks to say, "We're sorry. We could have handled this better and will work to do so going forward. We welcome the student back into the classroom tomorrow, where he belongs, and look forward to getting back to the business of teaching and learning."

[Guest]

Best article I've seen on the subject, Taranto is always an astute observer.

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/stand-with-ahmed-1442597070

 

The issue is the zero tolerance policies and complete lack of common sense in defining and then responding to threats. The rest can be argued back and forth like but without these stupid policies the escalation wouldn't have happened here or in other similar situations.

[SKL]

I know it was "just a clock," but to most people the shoe bomber's bomb was obviously "just a shoe."  Sometimes it is appropriate to look a little closer.  (And we aren't getting the full story here, because the school can't comment and we know the boy has doctored the facts at least a little.)  The next time we hear of a bombing or shooting, will these same people be patting the backs of the people who didn't look closer at anything out of the ordinary?

[HomeAgain]

I know it was "just a clock," but to most people the shoe bomber's bomb was obviously "just a shoe."  Sometimes it is appropriate to look a little closer.  (And we aren't getting the full story here, because the school can't comment and we know the boy has doctored the facts at least a little.)  The next time we hear of a bombing or shooting, will these same people be patting the backs of the people who didn't look closer at anything out of the ordinary?

 

And this is a deliberately obtuse argument.  The school knew it was just a clock, otherwise they would have evacuated, called the cops immediately, and had a bomb squad look at it.

 

 

There is no question that things should have been looked at closer.  But you simply cannot argue that the school thought it was a threat when they behaved in an opposite manner.

[Rivka]

No, this wasn't using parts from another clock.  It was taking a clock out of one case (the one it was bought in) and putting it in another box.  Anyway, I'm sure that no one cares that kids do that sort of stuff and try to pass it off as their own work, and I guess it doesn't matter (because it was just a clock), it just made the whole thing weirder.  He took a clock and put it in a case.  Then he carried it around school to show to people (or just the one teacher?) and set the alarm off during English class (reading that made me not surprised it got confiscated at all).  But maybe the engineering class is just starting to teach how to open things up or something like that.  It is still the beginning of the school year.

 

At any rate, yes I know clocks have been around for awhile.  But, I didn't realize that what he had wasn't an invention because that was how Ahmed referred to it himself.  I thought he had made something, put something together, invented something, put a new twist on a clock with some kind of new alarm or whatever.  I was mistaken, apparently because I only went by what he was saying and what the headlines were talking about.

 

ETA: Which, by the way makes the whole detention thing even more ridiculous, because the kid literally had a clock you could buy at the store in a black case you can get at hobby shops.  I mean, maybe everything escalated, because why would you put the innards of a clock in a box and carry it around?  Maybe they really were dumbfounded by that and stupidly decided it needed some kind of investigation.

 

Earlier in this thread you were proclaiming your lack of knowledge about electronics. Now you're 100% sure that you know exactly what Ahmed did and how much effort it took. I understand that you read commentary claiming that he just moved clock parts wholesale into another case, but what is your basis for putting all of your faith behind that claim? What is your basis for deciding that this internet guy is the only one out there judging Ahmed's project accurately, and not - for example - the people at MIT, various tech companies, etc.?

 

I don't think this kid is an unparalleled genius who did stuff that hardly any other kid could do, and I don't think most of his supporters do either. I do think he's a kid with a passion for electronics. I think he compiled and assembled various existing components to make a working clock, and I think that sounds like a cool and appropriate project for a fourteen-year-old. I've seen maker page instructions for similar projects. It's not OH MY GOSH GENIUS, no, but it is a valid expression of curiosity, scientific/engineering interest, and dedication to learning and constructing.

 

Honestly, you sound like someone who made up your mind about this kid and then went looking for evidence to support your claim. It sounds like you believe this article you found because it supports your pre-existing conclusions.

[Halftime Hope]

ETA: I quoted the wrong post.  oops.

 

[Word Nerd]

Best article I've seen on the subject, Taranto is always an astute observer.

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/stand-with-ahmed-1442597070

 

The issue is the zero tolerance policies and complete lack of common sense in defining and then responding to threats. The rest can be argued back and forth like but without these stupid policies the escalation wouldn't have happened here or in other similar situations.

I can't read the whole article because it's behind a paywall. I agree that zero-tolerance policies are to blame--but they also disproportionately affect minorities, whose punishments tend to be more severe. The fact that ZTPs are a key issue in this case doesn't mean his religion and ethnic background weren't also factors in the escalation.

[Dmmetler]

The fact is, most kids aren't going to do anything particularly original in their teens. Or as college students. There's a reason why the PhD degree requires an original contribution to human knowledge, but lower ones do not. And while Google gave Ahmed an invitation to attend the Google Science Fair, a digital clock isn't going to win. If he accepts Mark Zuckerman's offer of an internship, he'll be fetching coffee and making copies while learning about how a large scale website environment works, just like any other student.

 

What is exceptional about Ahmed's clock that people are reacting to is that it's not exceptional. It's exactly the sort of project that kids with access to Radio Shack or a bunch of old appliances have been making for years. But where most kids would have been encouraged and perhaps the adult in their life would have suggested a next step, the poor kid got told that the adults who are entrusted with his education and safety believe he's a terrorist.

 

What all the adults making offers and statements of support are doing is giving this kid the pat on the back, and the tech folks are offering that next step and guidance. They're doing so on a grand scale, much more so than the actual clock warrants, because the response of the adults in this kid's school was so egregious.

[zoobie]

I know it was "just a clock," but to most people the shoe bomber's bomb was obviously "just a shoe." Sometimes it is appropriate to look a little closer. (And we aren't getting the full story here, because the school can't comment and we know the boy has doctored the facts at least a little.) The next time we hear of a bombing or shooting, will these same people be patting the backs of the people who didn't look closer at anything out of the ordinary?

By this argument, should Muslim children not wear shoes to school? Those light up ones popular with preschoolers--are they all part of some secret Al Qaeda training to desensitize us?

[Butter]

My dad used to take things apart and put them back together as a teen.  He would then say he "made a (whatever)."  I could see a teen saying he invented something when he put it back together in a different way or place.  Teens don't always think the way adults do or use the same words.

[Halftime Hope]

<< Halftime Hope, on 19 Sept 2015 - 12:03 AM, said:

 

 

In the context of the family's community, it was a really, really, stupid thing to do.  Irving had two sharia-based honor murders a couple years back and has a sharia court.  I don't know if this family identifies with the same group of Islamic people behind the court, but it's a tense situation, and a little more prudence would have helped, unless he *wanted* the attention. >>

 

 

You do know a "sharia court" in the U.S. has no formal legal standing and can only be used for arbitration, right?  And that they are no different than various Christian arbitration services that are offered?  There are also Jewish "courts" that do the same thing.
 

 

/sarcasm/ Thank you for the education because your explanation was germane to my overall point, which was that in the context of his community, he should have exercised more caution.  /sarcasm off/

 

Now, regarding your assertion downplaying the significance of the court: the judges think more highly of themselves and their purview than you are portraying, and were you an Islamic woman going before them, you might not feel that you had the equal protection under the law afforded by US jurisprudence.  

 

(Edited, to not overstate my position.)

[ktgrok]

 

 

 

 

/sarcasm/ Thank you for the education because your explanation was germane to my overall point, which was that in the context of his community, he should have exercised more caution.  /sarcasm off/

 

 

no, he absolutely should NOT have to do that. His community needs to get over the whole Islamaphobia thing, rather than him having to deal with it. He's 14, they are grown ups. They are the ones that need to change their ways, not him. 

[MercyA]

Best article I've seen on the subject, Taranto is always an astute observer.

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/stand-with-ahmed-1442597070

 

I couldn't read this article without subscribing, but the subtitle rubbed me the wrong way.  "Islamaphobia" is not a myth. I'm a white Christian with a very American-sounding name, and I've still been hassled at the airport because of my head covering. They told me, point blank, that I could be hiding something under my skirt. They patted down my *Chihuahua*. (I'm glad I didn't have to give a "broader explanation" of my dog's purpose.)   :D  

 

I'm not complaining. I have it easy. I just think it's important to recognize that profiling and discrimination are in fact happening, and it's not right.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

<< Halftime Hope, on 19 Sept 2015 - 12:03 AM, said:

 

 

In the context of the family's community, it was a really, really, stupid thing to do.  Irving had two sharia-based honor murders a couple years back and has a sharia court.  I don't know if this family identifies with the same group of Islamic people behind the court, but it's a tense situation, and a little more prudence would have helped, unless he *wanted* the attention. >>

 

 

 

/sarcasm/ Thank you for the education because your explanation was germane to my overall point, which was that in the context of his community, he should have exercised more caution.  /sarcasm off/

 

Now, regarding your assertion downplaying the significance of the court: the judges think more highly of themselves and their purview than you are portraying, and were you an Islamic woman going before them, you very likely would not feel that you had the equal protection under the law afforded by US jurisprudence.  

 

 

Then why bring up the presence of the alleged sharia court in Irving?  And because there had been an "honor killing" in Irving this kid is supposed to know he has to be super cautious around the jumpy white folks?  Really?

 

Side note: Going before one of these courts in the United States is voluntary and a Muslim woman would have at least as many options as a Christian or Jewish women in communities which also have religious arbitration "courts".

 

 

[Word Nerd]

In the city where we lived previously, a family used homeschooling as a cover for child abuse and educational neglect, and one girl died. Should homeschoolers in our area have been extra cautious because some people were more suspicious of homeschooling after that terrible incident?

[Lady Florida.]

 

In the context of the family's community, it was a really, really, stupid thing to do.  Irving had two sharia-based honor murders a couple years back and has a sharia court.  I don't know if this family identifies with the same group of Islamic people behind the court, but it's a tense situation, and a little more prudence would have helped, unless he *wanted* the attention. 

 

No, they were not sharia. And the Muslim community in no way condoned what happened. Sharia is a complex legal system, and while I disagree with many if not most of the tenets, I also recognize that we in the U.S. are under no danger of sharia law taking over. 

 

Yes, they were honor killings. No they were not sharia. By connecting those murders with sharia you are either feeding the fear or have fallen victim to it.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I can't figure out how to post it without it leading to my e-mail (which as much as I like you guys, I don't want to do) but Maker Shed has "12 clocks You Can Make" as part of a "Stand with Ahmed" campaign!   

[Guest]

 

<< Halftime Hope, on 19 Sept 2015 - 12:03 AM, said:

 

 

In the context of the family's community, it was a really, really, stupid thing to do.  Irving had two sharia-based honor murders a couple years back and has a sharia court.  I don't know if this family identifies with the same group of Islamic people behind the court, but it's a tense situation, and a little more prudence would have helped, unless he *wanted* the attention. >>

 

 

 

/sarcasm/ Thank you for the education because your explanation was germane to my overall point, which was that in the context of his community, he should have exercised more caution.  /sarcasm off/

 

Now, regarding your assertion downplaying the significance of the court: the judges think more highly of themselves and their purview than you are portraying, and were you an Islamic woman going before them, you very likely would not feel that you had the equal protection under the law afforded by US jurisprudence.  

 

 

QUITE a claim! Tell us more, Haltime Hope, about what it's like to be an "Islamic woman" in America!

Sometimes you gotta realize where the extent of your expertise and personal experience falls short of having anything apt to say about the situation at hand, man.

 

[Lady Florida.]

This is a homeschool board devoted to the love of learning. We brag about our children's curiosity and accomplishments. We strive to be informed. Yet we still will choose to denigrate a child for his love of learning. There are still people among us who fear Sharia law is creeping into our country's courts. Are we really that clueless as a nation?

 

Sadly, yes.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

This is a homeschool board devoted to the love of learning. We brag about our children's curiosity and accomplishments. We strive to be informed. Yet we still will choose to denigrate a child for his love of learning. There are still people among us who fear Sharia law is creeping into our country's courts. Are we really that clueless as a nation?

 

Short answer: Yes.

 

Long answer: Yesssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

[Guest]

This is a homeschool board devoted to the love of learning. We brag about our children's curiosity and accomplishments. We strive to be informed. Yet we still will choose to denigrate a child for his love of learning. There are still people among us who fear Sharia law is creeping into our country's courts. Are we really that clueless as a nation?

 

As a nation, I reckon we're collectively quite susceptible to suggestion and tribal politics. We, as a group, also seem to be particularly adept at putting everything, including fellow human beans, into little mental boxes made of ticky-tacky and shutting them up tight in there. 

[Halftime Hope]

Side note: Going before one of these courts in the United States is voluntary and a Muslim woman would have at least as many options as a Christian or Jewish women in communities which also have religious arbitration "courts".

 

It's funny how many people on this board have great sympathy for Anna Duggar, understanding and bemoaning the fact that she is ensconced within a culture, a religious community, and a family in which she will have very great difficulty not being shamed and held responsible for actions that are not in any way her fault, and yet you don't see that a Muslim woman might have the same difficulty, a difficulty exacerbated by the existence of a tribunal which by its very nature tilts heavily in favor of the men of the faith community.  (As an example, to get a divorce, a Muslim man can go the tribunal and ask for one; a woman has to ask an imam to go ask for a divorce for her.  (I may not have the wording precisely right on that, it's been some months since this was discussed ad nauseum on local PBS news/issues broadcasts.) 

 

I don't know about orthodox Jewish communities, but for the most part Christian and Jewish practices do not have the massive strictures on women that seem to be present in many Muslim countries which have, to one degree or another, sharia.

 

 

Those of you diminishing what I wrote, saying that the Muslim tribunal is innocuous, most likely didn't listen to the local PBS interview programs that I did, watching and listening to the Muslims behind this try to explain and make their case.  What you get in newspaper articles was a politically-correct, sanitized version of what came out of these guys' mouths.   

[EmseB]

I haven't seen any interviews where he refers to the clock as an "invention." He says he wants to be an inventor when he grows up and he has talked about an invention he's working on that involves magnets (he mentioned this in the press conference), but I haven't seen him call the clock itself an invention.

It was in the interview where he had the engineering book propped up behind him on his desk.

 

So, ok, I'm getting that there is no discussing what he did in anything but a positive light. He's amazing for putting a clock in a box. There's no way to acknowledge the administration and police were wrong and still talk about what actually happened, because if you don't agree that a) it's just a clock, while simultaneously also believing b) Ahmed is a STEM genius or on his way to saving the world and c) any speculation on what or why suspicions were aroused or why he might have brought a clock into school are at best not welcome and makes someone stupid, or at worst racist.

 

ETA: and before anyone gets on my case about something about this boy...if my own child put a bunch of wires and circuitry from another component into a non-descript box, I would tell him it was neat what he made.  I absolutely would.  At the high school level, in a public school, would I encourage him to take it to school?  I don't know why I would.  I can think of a couple of reasons why I wouldn't (mainly that it would be a distraction during other classes)  If he made something like that at school it would be different.  And if it got confiscated from him, I'd not be surprised.  If he got arrested for it, I'd be livid.  But this whole idea that we must venerate this kid is just so odd to me.  It would be different if this zero tolerance stuff didn't happen at schools all the time over much lesser things, but it does, and no one seems to care that this is what bureaucracy is like.  Zero tolerance, no thinking, something must be done, and we aren't going to actually examine the facts at hand at all.

[Halftime Hope]

In the city where we lived previously, a family used homeschooling as a cover for child abuse and educational neglect, and one girl died. Should homeschoolers in our area have been extra cautious because some people were more suspicious of homeschooling after that terrible incident?

 

I think we ALL, every one of us, needs to weigh carefully our actions, our choices, and the possible consequences that may ensue from them.  There are two concepts in my faith tradition that sum it up nicely, to behave in a manner that is "above reproach" and to "avoid all appearance of wrong-doing".   Along with that, but one notch less restrictive, is the concept of using common sense.  It's just common sense to adapt our behavior according to our context. 

[Halftime Hope]

no, he absolutely should NOT have to do that. His community needs to get over the whole Islamaphobia thing, rather than him having to deal with it. He's 14, they are grown ups. They are the ones that need to change their ways, not him. 

 

Except that he did not attract attention for being Islamic:  the day he got attention was the day he brought something strange-looking to class.  Yeesh, people: we're talking schools that have metal detectors and zero-tolerance policies for very nearly everything (!) in my metro area, schools that have on-campus police officers, many of them on each campus, patrolling around the clock. 

 

I guess I'm just cut out of a different bit of cloth than some of you all seem to be.  If something I do provokes a scene, I consider it my responsibility.  If my kid provokes a scene, I'm going to have a talk with him to find out the facts, and then I'm going to help him see how others perceived what he did.  And then we'll talk about whether it is right or not, and in general, we'll talk about changes so that we don't repeat the same result. 

 

And had he been my kid, we'd have already had a hundred talks about listening to the voice of caution in your head, cuz that's been a mantra for us since I was sooo slow to learn it.  Sigh.  (The inner dialog: "Self, something tells me this is going to look suspicious.  Maybe I'll ask my teacher, or I'll find out if we can do in-class projects or a science fair project?") 

[Guest]

omg

[fraidycat]

No, this wasn't using parts from another clock. It was taking a clock out of one case (the one it was bought in) and putting it in another box. Anyway, I'm sure that no one cares that kids do that sort of stuff and try to pass it off as their own work, and I guess it doesn't matter (because it was just a clock), it just made the whole thing weirder. He took a clock and put it in a case. Then he carried it around school to show to people (or just the one teacher?) and set the alarm off during English class (reading that made me not surprised it got confiscated at all). But maybe the engineering class is just starting to teach how to open things up or something like that. It is still the beginning of the school year.

 

At any rate, yes I know clocks have been around for awhile. But, I didn't realize that what he had wasn't an invention because that was how Ahmed referred to it himself. I thought he had made something, put something together, invented something, put a new twist on a clock with some kind of new alarm or whatever. I was mistaken, apparently because I only went by what he was saying and what the headlines were talking about.

 

ETA: Which, by the way makes the whole detention thing even more ridiculous, because the kid literally had a clock you could buy at the store in a black case you can get at hobby shops. I mean, maybe everything escalated, because why would you put the innards of a clock in a box and carry it around? Maybe they really were dumbfounded by that and stupidly decided it needed some kind of investigation.

Investigation =/= arrest.

 

I do not care how many ways you try to reframe this story the 14 YEAR OLD kid did NOT DESERVE to be ARRESTED. Period. Full stop. End of story. He should never have been removed from the school. His project was not prodigy level but the actions of the adults involved were most certainly prodigiously stupid.

 

So Yes, it does sound extremely racist to continue making excuses for the racist cops. If that's not the idea you wish to project, then there is no excusing the adult behavior in this case.

[Lady Florida.]

Except that he did not attract attention for being Islamic:  the day he got attention was the day he brought something strange-looking to class.  Yeesh, people: we're talking schools that have metal detectors and zero-tolerance policies for very nearly everything (!) in my metro area, schools that have on-campus police officers, many of them on each campus, patrolling around the clock. 

 

 

 

No, this was not the first time he got attention. It was the first time the rest of the world found out about him, but many in the school and the city of Irving were already biased against "his kind". 

 

 

Are you aware that he had been called a terrorist in middle school simply because he's a brown skinned Muslim? And that his sister had also been called names because of her race and religion? In a town full of fear and hate? So yes, he did attract attention for being Islamic.

[Lady Florida.]

dp

[zoobie]

No, they were not sharia. And the Muslim community in no way condoned what happened. Sharia is a complex legal system, and while I disagree with many if not most of the tenets, I also recognize that we in the U.S. are under no danger of sharia law taking over.

 

Yes, they were honor killings. No they were not sharia. By connecting those murders with sharia you are either feeding the fear or have fallen victim to it.

Those murders happened within an Iranian family. Ahmed and his family are from Sudan. Other than both being Muslim and living in a suburb of Houston, there are no similarities to the situations. How many Christians in your city have killed a child? Would you use that as an example of psychosis pervading the Christian religious community of the entire town to assign motive to a child in a school incident? It's preposterous to make that kind of connection.

[EmseB]

I don't understand what you have against this boy.

I don't have anything against him. Why does it have to be for or against? Isn't that the "tribalism" that another poster was taking about? I've acknowledged in every post that him getting arrested was wrong. I'd be livid if it was my own kid. Is any other discussion or speculation about the incident out of bounds? Is it considered being against him to talk about the merits of bringing clock innards to school in a generic black case and then setting it to go off during an unrelated class? I'd is against him to have any discussion at all, then I'll go back to my previous response: Shouldn't have happened, did happen, was stupid, public school admins can't think for themselves, would be livid if it was my kid.

[Butter]

a suburb of Houston,

 

Dallas.  Irving is a large suburb of Dallas.  Houston is about 3 1/2-4 hours away.