I often noticed that it isn't always the story that's the news but sometimes comments being made about the story that is the news. The comments made to a recent story in the Nashua Telegraph are a perfect example of the general thinking of the public being a story in and of itself.
The story found HERE in full, is about a young woman who wanted to take a 21 year old boyfriend to her prom. The school (Nashua High School South) had a policy against anyone 21 years or older attending the prom. Nashua north does not have such a policy. The young woman's mother called the school and after a discussion the school choose to allow the girl to take her boyfriend after a background check (standard policy for all non students).
From reading this story and it's comments I was drawn to two arguments made.
The first was an argument made by the young girl:
Strangely, if Hynes lived in the north end of the city, Silva’s age wouldn’t have been an issue. Nashua High North doesn’t have an age restriction on its senior prom, according to the school.
“I didn’t get it,” Hynes said. “I thought the schools were supposed to be the same.”
The young girls mother also raised the same thought:
Cousino doesn’t agree, saying it doesn’t make sense for the two schools to have different polices. It sends the message that one school trusts its students more than the other, she said. Cousino said she couldn’t find anything about the age restriction in the student handbook, either.
This mentality of cookie cutter schools is part of the reason for the education problem we have in this country. Children are not all the same so yes different rules, teaching methods etc should be applied on the grounds of what is best for that group of students within that particular school.
It's the second issue however that I found the most shocking. Read the following comments:
youre not any better and rules are rules why do you have to complain so much.
south set up the rules for a reason. me and my friends got over not being able to have our 21 yr old boyfriends not being able to come, we got other dates instead because we got sick of fighting and realized we should just get over it. sorry that she is too good to do that.
Here are the toppers:
No offense to her mom but they dont have to give her a reason for their policy... It is in place and should have been upheld. They should have told her NO. Yet again we have rules and policies, probably for a legitimate reason, but we will alter them to respect the "CHOICE" of an individual. And that is what that is a choice, Maybe she should be teaching her kid some life lessons and that there are consequences for her decisions and not that the world will cater to them.
Not the point at all, It is a policy more than likely and I may be reaching but probably put in place for an alcohol related problem, but a policy none the less. These kids need to stop living in fantasy land and realize the world wont be catering to them.
These comments all depict the same mentality that allowed Nazis to step into power and slaughter millions while soldiers just followed rules. If a rule seems wrong you SHOULD argue against it. This lock step mentality is what has lead this country to blindly spend billions and send thousands of our own citizens to jail for victimless crimes.
Even though most people cannot form a solid argument why beer is legal and marijuana isn't they continue to support laws punishing people for it.
And while two people can meet up in a bar, the guy can spend $50 on drinks and maybe dinner then have sex but yet those same two people cannot exchange the same $50 spent on the woman and skip dinner and drinks and go right to having sex because then it's a crime.
Over the years there have been countless "policies" and "rules" put in place most likely for good reasons but over time became unfair or were written poorly causing unintended consequences. Because people spoke out and fought them then were later changed. In other cases such as the two examples I give people continue to argue against the rules we view as unfair. If we sat back and accepted things as those above us said they are and should be we'd still be living under English rule.