Hearing Examiner: School Was Right to Suspend Little Boy Who Chewed Pop-Tart Into Shape of Gun

Last year, the suspension of a
seven-year-old boy from an Anne Arundel County, Maryland, public
school generated significant media attention. The boy’s crime? He
chewed a Pop-Tart into the shape of a gun and reportedly made
shooting gestures at other students.

The incident happened in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting,
and many people said administrators overreacted out of
paranoid sensitivity to gun violence. School policies prohibit
“lookalike weapons” as well as real ones, even though no one was
ever shot to death by a pastry.

Ever since his suspension, school administrators have tried to
spin the harsh disciplinary measures as a last response to a string
of inappropriate behavior. Earlier this week, a hearing examiner
agreed with the school that the boy’s suspension was justified on
those grounds. According to
The Washington Post:

In a 30-page opinion, hearing examiner Andrew W. Nussbaum
supported a principal’s assertion that the suspension was based on
a history of problems, not the pastry episode. “The evidence is
clear that suspension is used as a last resort,” Nussbaum
wrote.

… In Anne Arundel, the boy’s disciplinary referral used the
word “gun” four times, asserting that the child “chewed his cereal
bar into the shape of a gun” and aimed it at other children. The
document quoted the boy as yelling, “Look, I made a gun!” It cited
classroom disruption as the primary reason for the suspension, and
an administrator noted several previous incidents of disruptive
behavior near the bottom of the form.

In Nussbaum’s opinion, dated June 26, he rejected arguments from
the boy’s family that the school overreacted and that the
suspension arose from a bias against guns. The father said he was
told the day that the boy was suspended that it was for playing as
if he had a gun, not for ongoing problems.

… Robin Ficker, an attorney for the family, said the parents
are hoping for the best when the school board makes its decision.
He argued that the school system tried to change the issue “into a
long-term behavior problem after the fact.”

It’s difficult to believe that the suspension wasn’t really
about the kid’s pretend gun antics, however. Anne Arundel
administrators sent
a letter home to parents in response to the Pop-Tart incident
that clearly indicates they were freaked out about it:

I am writing to let you know about an incident that
occurred this morning in one of our classrooms and encourage
you to discuss this matter with your child in a manner
you deem most appropriate.  During breakfast this
morning, one of our students used food to make
inappropriate gestures that disrupted the class. While no
physical threats were made and no one was harmed, the student
had to be removed from the classroom. 

If your children express that they are troubled by today’s
incident, please talk with them and help them share their
feelings. Our school counselor is available to meet with
any students who have the need to do so next week. 

Administrators suspended the boy for two days and marked his
personal record. His official school files now reference the word
“gun” four times. His parents have asked administrators to expunge
the file; they have refused.

It’s important to remember that there is a seven-year-old boy at
the fruit-filled center of this case study in anti-gun hysteria and
heavy-handedness. I have a hard time believing that anyone has
suffered as a result of his actions other than himself.

Read more from Reason on illogical zero tolerance school
policies
here.