General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsArmy officer denied entry to his daughter's high school for wearing his uniform
I tried searching this forum to see if this has been discussed already and I didn't find anything. I am a new poster here though and haven't figured my way around everything yet so please let me know if this is had been posted anywhere.
http://abc11.com/302500
When I first read this story it set off my "this doesn't sound right" radar. It's made it's rounds to all the news outlets. I've been checking for updates for a month because I had a feeling nothing would ever be reported about the outcome of the investigation of the security company this school uses.
Probably because they could not find any security officers that actually denied this father entry to the school because it clearly didn't happen.
1. Why does daddy need to help his high school daughter find her way through a high school?
2. Why would any public American school have such a policy?
3. The superintendent is a veteran and says there is no such policy in their school.
4. I suppose Mom was going to sit in the car while Dad and daughter took a walk around the school.
5. This story came out when illegal immigration was a hot topic and supposedly a landlord recently told his renters to take down their American flag outside. (B.S. as well) and of course midterm elections.
6. I applaud the way that the principal and superintendent handled the situation. They clearly didn't want to accuse a member of our armed forces is a shameless and obvious liar!!
Your thoughts?
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)They lie, 24/7.
I'm sure you didn't know that.
coldean
(47 posts)Google it, it's made it's rounds on cnn and and as well
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Edit your OP to quote and link to somewhere other than the one you chose.
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)Such as this report from an ABC News affiliate:
Army officer denied entry to his daughter's high school for wearing his uniform
http://abc11.com/302500/
Iggo
(47,577 posts)You don't wanna know my thoughts.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)a parent accompanying their child on their first day at a new school? There are many reasons why this is appropriate. Of course, if the parents made prior arrangments to enroll their child prior to the first day of school, it would not be necessary.
Kilgore
(1,733 posts)Quick check on google found it.
http://abc11.com/302500/
coldean
(47 posts)uppityperson
(115,681 posts)Breitbart is a rw rag, not considered an decent source for DU.
http://www.armytimes.com/article/20140911/NEWS/309110056/Army-officer-uniform-denied-entry-child-s-school-supe-apologizes
A security guard stopped an active-duty Army lieutenant colonel from entering his daughters Detroit-area high school Tuesday, saying those in military uniform werent permitted inside.
The incident at Rochester Adams High School involving Lt. Col. Sherwood Baker, which was reported by Fox 2 Detroit and other local media outlets, triggered online outrage and a rapid response from the school districts superintendent, a former Marine officer.
(clip)
New to the school district, Baker was visiting the school to help his daughter transfer into a different math class, said Bakers wife, Rachel Ferhadson, in a Thursday phone interview....
http://www.theoaklandpress.com/general-news/20140910/rochester-schools-superintendent-apologizes-to-army-officer-turned-away-from-school-it-cannot-happen-again
Lt. Col. Sherwood Baker went into Adams High School in Rochester Hills to talk to his daughters counselor about her class schedule, but he was not allowed to enter the building because he was wearing his military uniform.
They stopped him at the door and told him he couldnt go in because it was against policy, wife Rachel Ferhadson said.
Shaner, a veteran who served in the U.S. Marines from 1990-94, stressed that this is not the districts policy. He said the security company is contracted and that school officials have met with the security officers to make sure this doesnt happen again.....
coldean
(47 posts)He apologized because there is no way he was going to accuse a member of our armed forces of lying.
Much easier to apologize and say you will take care of the matter.
uppityperson
(115,681 posts)coldean
(47 posts)"I've been checking for updates for a month because I had a feeling nothing would ever be reported about the outcome of the investigation of the security company this school uses.
Probably because they could not find any security officers that actually denied this father entry to the school because it clearly didn't happen."
I some report would have come after the superintendent said they would investigate the security guards. Heck it would be easy enough for media to find out what security company they used and investigate on their own. But there no surety there because I suspect it just didn't happen.
3. The superintendent is a veteran and says there is no such policy in their school.
5. This story came out when illegal immigration was a hot topic and supposedly a landlord recently told his renters to take down their American flag outside. (B.S. as well) and of course midterm elections.
MADem
(135,425 posts)MILITARY RECRUITERS, and the stupid security company employees got a little confused.
Most schools do limit recruiters--otherwise, they'd be in the schools all day, every day, trying to make goal/mission.
The article doesn't go into that, but I'll bet that's where the guard's bad judgment originated.
uppityperson
(115,681 posts)pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)It didn't make sense that a security guard would invent a policy out of personal bias--and much less sense that other security guards would go along with it. More likely a misinterpretation of an actual policy--and by Jove, I think you've got it!
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)I suspect there is a similar policy at this school and the uniform had nothing to do with it.
whistler162
(11,155 posts)Since every school I work in requires the parent to sign the child out if the child is picked up. .
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)reminded that, during the High Middle Ages, false humility came to be considered a grievous sin, deriving from the worst of the big 7: Pride.
Just sayin'
uppityperson
(115,681 posts)kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)He runs, he shoots, he scores!!!!
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)TeamPooka
(24,264 posts)coldean
(47 posts)I updated my OP with a different link.
Appreciate the concern..
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)... And did I mention BENGHAZIIIIIIIIIIIII
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)sounds like a political stunt to me
coldean
(47 posts)That's the exact feelings I'm left with as well.
wercal
(1,370 posts)I had an additional duty to help soldiers file their taxes....and we were given a crash course by IRS employees. At that time, Ft Riley allowed its soldiers to wear uniforms off post. Often we would wear them to the gas station, grocery store, etc when we left post and headed for home. I specifically remember this, because of the tax implications - since the uniform was alowed off post, it was not strictly a work uniform...and cost to buy, clean etc were not deductible.
Anyway - in most cases there is nothing at all inappropriate about wearing a uniform while not on duty - and you should not assume things you really don't know.
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)In any other field that I can think of, from firemen to pro sports players to nurses to hotel cleaning staff and fast-food employees, uniforms are not worn off duty.
Why should it be different for the military?
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)And those trips often involve stopping for errands on the way. I often see uniformed security guards, nurses, etc. at the grocery store or gas station.
And someone who has an outside appointment during the workday may not change out of uniform or may not have time to change.
wercal
(1,370 posts)People wear their uniform 'off duty' all the time. And this story...a parent going to the school for some reason during the middle of the day...is a very typical example.
Would you prefer he waste time going home to change?
Oktober
(1,488 posts)... their uniform while not directly conducting their military duties.