Democratic Conversation

In Danville, Pennsylvania, police just today are reported to have dropped disorderly conduct charges against a 12-year-old special education student for wetting her pants “on purpose” — as the charges stated. Whatever else can possibly happen in a school situation, does one not consider that when police are called they represent a semblance, just a smidgen, of common sense to a civil problem?

The young girl, whose name has been (thankfully) withheld from the public, was asked to go into the school cafeteria kitchen to help wash some pots and pans following a holiday lunch celebration that included herself, classmates, and teachers. One might rightly assume the girl was not the only student asked to help out. She refused, for reasons unstated, and so the principal was called. Apparently, the girl wet her pants when the principal spoke to her. The principal, whose name was also withheld from the news report, claimed, apparently accused the girl of wetting her pants on purpose. And from that reasoning, school officials called the police to press charges against this perhaps obstinate, perhaps frightened girl.

Even Barney Fife it would seem would have had the wherewithal to ask the principal, “Don’t you think calling her parents in would be enough?” Well, wait. Perhaps the police did try to intercede on behalf of common sense in the matter. That would mean the schools officials (principal?) were adamant to discipline the girl in a way that could teach her a valuable lesson. Let’s call it “Scared Straight.” Or maybe the principal had read a good deal of Charles Dickens over the summer. Anyway, he might have thought, “God forbid we have copycat urinators who piss away all the school rules. Anarchy would ensue!” So, bully for that principal, making emblematic of all that kids think about principals the world over.

Yet perhaps the police did not question the righteousness of the principal’s requested charges. Perhaps their hands were tied according to the law: someone want’s to press charges, and the charges are legitimate (regardless of the hilarity or pathetic nature of the proffered charges), police have no alternative but to do their sworn duty as rolling jailers.

The news report was not specific on either of these events. What was reported in the aftermath of the incident (and arrest of this now, certainly, terrified girl?) was that the school superintendent and town police chief realize what sort of error had been made. Charges were dropped, and the superintendent, according to the report, said “it was a mistake to bring police into a case of school discipline.”

I can now proceed to skin the principle, the police, even the kid — who just might have been an obstinate brat looking to get a little attention (12-year-olds can be like that); who knows? — but there seems little point. Sometimes it’s best, as the Associated Press did, simply to tell the story and let people expose themselves through their own actions and words.