That's actually kind of awesome news that the kids are talking about the next President. That's the kind of change you can't suppress (even with firehoses or bus drivers). I'd love to see those reports about the stats on how many kids can't identify the President and VP in the upcoming years.

This sort of also reminds me of my Dad who got in trouble for borrowing Das Kapital from the library when he was in Junior High in the 50s. ;)

Ok, feels reeeeeally weird to defend those who are putting limits on the use of his name, but my wife teaches in the Mississippi school system, and she says things quickly got out of hand in the week after the election.

She heard a group of black kids harassing white kids and saying that Obama was going to lock up the white kids' parents and set free every incarcerated black person. And I'm sure there were some ignorant white kids saying untrue things about Obama.

All kids everywhere can be crazy, you know? They hear what they want to hear and they run with it. But if you hear them making incendiary comments like that for a week, it's easy to see how you might declare, "Ok, no more politics, no more use of his name, just stop."

In the long run, you'd hope we could educate our kids about civil political discourse, but our schools (especially in Miss.) aren't staffed/funded for much of that. We've got to keep test scores up! (he says sarcastically)

So, I just wanted to say it's a MUCH more complex issue than this article implies. Sorry to remain anonymous, but I don't want to draw the wrong kind of attention for this comment.

(And if it matters, my wife and I both voted Obama.)

Thanks for sharing this, Anonymous in MS. As someone who doesn't spend much time around young children I forget how utterly open and cruel kids can be as they explore the power of language and social interaction. While shocking to our socially constrained ears, it's probably ultimately for the best that children be allowed to explore in this manner without fear of retribution, and it's also probably for the best to shield the adult population from such exploration, lest our delicate senses be offended. If they don't get the demons out now, I bet they'll fester. So by a similar token, those Idaho school children that chanted "assassinate obama" shouldn't be punished, but at the same time they shouldn't be recognized by the outside world, as such words probably do us more damage then they do them.

Hey MS, thanks for being honest and offering a fresh perspective. From a school administration and a legal point of view, however, schools that decide the proper reaction is to ban the name Obama are blatantly violating the constitution, sympathies or no. School administrators know better than anyone how cruel kids can be - which is precisely why penalizing the use of a name is a deeply awkward substitute for disciplining actually disruptive or violent behavior.

The standard for squelching speech in a school is whether the speech is "disruptive." Let's say Mike picks on Suzy, and pulls her hair while yelling, "I hate you, Suzy!!" Should the school ban the use of Suzy's name b/c it was associated with disruption? (That's clearly rhetorical b/c the question is so stupid).

The only difference here is that the schools figured the Black Man on Campus's name is in and of itself disruptive - not the incidents or punishable behavior that surrounded prior uses of his name. And I think that takes quite a logical jump, and frankly I also think it takes a mind inured to decades and decades of racism, and a mind willing to accept that the power of a Black man's name is itself disruptive to good order. And when that man happens to be the President-Elect, such a conclusion flies in the face of logic, the Constitution, proper school policy, and all right-thinking people.

While I agree with you flea, and would even go a step farther, as indicated above, necessitating quite a high level of abuse to constitute disruption, given that the punishable behavior and implied threats already took place and given that the school recognized it as a disruption, I can easily see how the name alone can then become a disruptable trigger.

The scenario is that, now that it has been established that Obama's gonna lock whitey up, including the victim's parents and possibily the victim his/herself, all the bully needs to do is say "Obama", and maybe initially add a touch of menace, but then later on not at all, and this is recognized as code for "you're gonna get it." The teacher catches wind of this and in the finest American medical tradition targets the symptom and not the disease, banning the trigger word itself.
Of course this is a useless move, as bullies are inventive and any word can be a trigger. But eradicating intent is just so hard, especially when you have 30 kids or more to teach and babysit simultaneously.

Most of this can be addressed in a serious classroom discussion, that is well thought-out by the teacher, explicitly talks about race, and makes the kids see the illogic of their use of Obama's name in a threatening way. I think this is a perfect example of a "teachable moment" that can be effective to stop any taunting and should not be exploited for the media or by school admin hanging onto the legacy of racism. They're trying to not make things explosive by avoiding the topic. I would probably make my students watch Obama's speech on race and confront it head-on (or there are nonfiction picture books about Obama already out there)--let the kids see the complexity of the issue and then challenge them to make a thoughtful comment about it. I really missed teaching during the election!

I'm glad you chimed in here Annie. I was very much hoping you would.

What did you do about bullying? In general, what are teachers taught to do?

The best thing (and research supports this) is to get kids themselves to make "bystander statements" against the bully. It's hard for kids (and adults themselves) to come back at a bully verbally, but if there are peer witnesses that can chime in ("that's not funny" "that's not true" "leave him alone" or the good ol "c'mon man, shut up"), this is the best way to get the bully to stop (because you hope it happens when there are not adults around). But that has to be pre-rehearsed and can be through role-play. Generally, in elementary school we'd have morning and afternoon "meetings," talk about these issues, role-play or discuss how it could be resolved differently next time, etc. And if you talk about it enough in the beginning, then when it happens, you can say "what did we talk about last time? what did we decide about that kind of language? etc etc.

Usually when bullies and kids in general use words against each other, it comes from a lack of knowledge of what it really means or fear. When kids have used the words "rape," "racist," or "monkey" in front of me about other teachers or students, my first reaction is to say to the individual privately, "do you know what that means? Explain." And all of the times, the student has given a misguided answer and that is the best time to teach him or her. Basically with the Obama incident, if it's a class-wide epidemic, I would talk about race openly and Obama's identity and then talk about what kind of powers the President has, and what sorts of crimes lead one to be arrested. I might share about MLK and show how he defended people of all colours, highlight some of his work for the unions, against the war. Anyway, I just think this issue is one worth stopping the school day for, worth going over, but the pressure for test scores is absolutely real and maniacal in most schools and it's something that I hope will change as well (give the tests, skip the mania, use the results for better outcomes...). Et voila...

This election was really educational for me about how differently Southern people approach race relations.

Real nice, Lorelei. We're having a reasoned discussion of how best to approach an issue of race, education, and civic discourse, and you come along and start making sweeping generalizations. I'm assuming you meant your comment to degrade the South or else you would have explained what you've learned so we could all partake in your enlightenment.

Racial strife is everywhere. Everywhere. But I've lived 30 years in Tennessee, Arkansas, and Mississippi, and the two only nasty race-related incidents I've seen in my life occurred in Los Angeles and London. So the only fair generalization you can make about race in specific regions of the country is that it's a complex issue everywhere and that a lot of good people are working to make things better.

Annie, thanks for your specific response. It's a shame the bus driver and coach mentioned above didn't feel they had the time, patience, or energy to respond like that. It's no question my beloved Mississippi needs help, education-wise, and I think electing Obama was a step in the right direction.

You know, all I said was that Southern people approach race relations differently, and you leapt to a bunch of conclusions in a way that seems really defensive. I could talk about what I actually meant, but you just took away my motivation.