Student maternity leave is a concept built upon Congressional and state-mandated maternity and other family leave policies.
Leonardo | 01.08.08 - 5:46 pm | #

It's hardly "punishment". Advancement through school is a recognition of achievement of tiers of learning. I can't imagine ANY reason to confer such recognition when the learning hasn't taken place. Indeed, pushing the girls ahead into a new learning experience that they haven't prepared themselves for seems like a BIGGER punishment.

Will student PAternity leave be next up?
ChrisW | 01.08.08 - 6:26 pm | #

It makes sense to me--if "families" are supposed to be the thing that keeps kids out of trouble, then we should work on letting new mothers bond with their children. And I hardly think that their month off will come with no strings attached--rather, they'll be further behind when they do return. Students who practise abstience are "rewarded" by not having to take care of a baby, and all that entails as far as continuing school, being able to work longer hours, etc.

I'm glad to see that Denver is stepping up sex-ed with contraceptives, instead of abstinence only...sounds like the problem is not teenager mothers getting a free ride, but teenage mothers, full stop.
rNicki | Homepage | 01.09.08 - 10:40 am | #

Oh for fuck's sake.

A baby IS a "consequence," you sexist twerp--a natural and predictable consequence. Denying maternity leave, on the other hand, is an artificial punishment--which I know you know the government shouldn't impose (and needn't, in this case).

Then there's your title. These girls already have to manage their besmirched reputation; they already have to deal with name calling. They don't need to be branded them with such freighted language. It actually won't help, your facile "encouragement" language notwithstanding.

Maybe now that Ron Paul's newsletters are airing out on the back porch, you'll be more careful in the future about spewing such tripe in the future. Probably not. But do try to remember that it's thoughtless people like you who are associating libertarianism with social regression in every middle- or highbrow publication around (I found this piece from Salon; the Paul dustup came from TNR).
LR | 01.09.08 - 2:23 pm | #

The title's just a lowbrow joke. Of course not all pregnant teens are skanks, although some may very well be.

More to the point, the moms are not prevented from taking leave. They're perfectly free to do so. In fact, it's in most cases a good idea to do so... maybe even to take an entire year. So it all boils down to what exactly they are asking for in the maternity leave package.

And of course a baby IS a consequence. I'm not challenging that. However, with the responsibilities of having a baby come come many other "side-effect" consequences. And I don't think it's the responsibility of a school district to ease or remove those consequences.

If you read the paragraph about school choice, you would see that I fully support the choices of individual schools to set their own policies on maternity leave. The real way in which the mother is being screwed is by not having a choice of which school to attend. Still I have a problem with the noted (in the article) moms basically "lobbying" a school district.

Also, racist language is NOT the same as "skank", not to mention that the context is entire different. That was a serious political newsletter stamped with the name of a politician, this was a lowbrow blog post. As a side note, I'm not running for office, and will never.

Since the subject matter of the post is rather serious, however, I'm going to change the title. I think it's fair to say that the post content can't really be taken seriously (by some) with that title. That is fair.

That said and done, I hope LR can read this comment and respond, now, what is "thoughtless" or "tripe" in the content of the post.
Nate | Homepage | 01.09.08 - 9:58 pm | #

well...can i change the title back to its original form? our post titles are the only thing we have going for us...

in seriousness, good response. it's the one i had worked up in my head, and i take offense at being lumped together with racist propaganda.
Rob | Homepage | 01.09.08 - 11:34 pm | #

rNicki,

1) "If 'families' are supposed to be the thing that keeps kids out of trouble," do fathers deserve a month of leave also? I assume so, or else that rationale wouldn't make much sense.

2) To call NOT having a baby a reward makes no sense. That would make about 90% (just a rough figure, no source) of high school students "rewarded". And that defeats the purpose of using the word "rewarded".

3) "I'm glad to see that Denver is stepping up sex-ed with contraceptives, instead of abstinence only..."
I agree completely. I must admit I'm a bit concerned about public schools giving out contraceptives (the issue of legal liability in case of failure or misuse, for example). But I can't bring myself to get too upset about that approach, since the abstinence education is and always has been a joke.
Nate | 01.10.08 - 5:59 am | #

There are federal maternity leave laws. Just because "the market" would force a mother back to work soon after having her baby, there are problems with that issue in itself. Four weeks of maternity leave with work being made up should definitely be granted. Better these women being productive members of society with their education than on welfare.

As for child care, no. The *most* I could agree with would be tax breaks for child care providers who provide child care services for students (high school and college) at reduced rates.
Vexaster | 01.12.08 - 11:09 am | #