LOL... semi-permanent. Henna lasts at the longest 2 weeks. Both daughters have had then multiple times. And there are many safe ways to remove them, most with things you have around the house (baking soda, toothpaste, lemon juice, baby oil, olive oil will all remove henna tattoos). Again, the woman simply wanted to make a political point against schools and against Muslims...
or....she was just pissed off that they put BS on her kid that she couldn't get off without her permission. This really isn't hard to understand for normal people....that said, I can see why so many here in the D&D are struggling though. If a kid had someone at school put designs that lasted "at the longest 2 weeks" and it was related to Christianity then we wouldn't have so many holdouts thinking that it wasn't a big deal for that to happen without parental permission. Unfortunately that wasn't the case so we have a few stupid people derping up the thread. You don't ink up a kid with stuff that can stay for several days without the permission of the parents. End of story.
I throw the BS flag. The school did send out a notice. The woman says she didn't know what Henna was (I claim I seriously doubt). She claims it ruined the Christmas picture (presumably taken by the school, since they offered to photoshop the tattoo out). But here are her real issues: “It's upsetting to go through Christmas with another religion's celebratory symbolism all over my daughter's hands,” Tammy Samour told KHOU, noting that the removable dye is used in Hindu and Islamic tradition. ...But tattooing another culture's expressions on my daughter is not acceptable.” And again... she rushes this to the media... because of what she thought was the school's desire to promote "Hindu and Islamic tradition". Or she could have removed the Henna tattoo with any number of ways.
Except the mother actually did give permission. In pretty much any realm of law, being given actual notice and an opportunity to object and then doing nothing constitutes permission. If there is a fairly common-place word that you don't understand, it's up to you to look it up, especially when doing so is pretty easy. She just didn't understand (or so she says) what it was that she gave permission to do because she was too lazy, and didn't care enough about her daughter, to actually take a minute to try to understand what is written on the note that she admits to having read from her daughter's school. The note tells her specifically that the multi-cultural event at the school will involve "henna." She read it and (if you believe her) and thought "'henna,' hmmm, I don't understand what this means" but then decided "yeah, OK, do whatever you want."
I don't think that just anyone would know that henna would mean that your kid would be getting inked up for a week or more. If you just said "henna" I wouldn't know what it was unless you described it a bit. I've seen it before, but never knew what it was called and never cared enough to ask. Anyway, there's just no reason to be inking up 7 year old kids at school with ink that isn't easily removable. If the kid came home and it washed off, the mom probably doesn't even care. It was just a really stupid idea by the school.
To clear up any confusion schools should ALWAYS require written permission to ensure that the parent has read and understands the note and also to protect the school in cases like this. Without the signature, prior to applying the henna, how does the school know with absolute certainty that the parents actually read the note? To assume consent is ridiculous.
Asking for a signature may be the best policy if you want to be careful-- and the school in this case may or may not have done so. It wasn't discussed in the article. However, the purpose of asking for a signature is to make sure that the parents actually read the note. In this case, the mother admits that she read the note. So the signature issue is really a moot point. Requiring a signature wouldn't make sure that the parents understand the note, though-- people sign all kinds of stuff that they do not understand (and sometimes do not even read). It's useful for covering your ass if a dispute arises, though. In this case, the mother read the note, and if she really cared about what was happening at her kid's school, she should have taken the time to understand what the note says by looking up words which she did not understand. There are lots of words that I don't understand, but if a note gets sent home about activities that my child, whom I care about very much, was going to participate in, I'd probably look it up. I mean, what if it is some sort of dangerous sport that puts my child at risk of concussion?
Again, why is there so much outrage that a teacher can draw henna on a child without permission, but no outrage that a school administrator can HIT a child without permission? (You have to specifically opt OUT of corporal punishment in Texas - otherwise, the school is authorized to do it.)
Silence does not constitute acceptance, except in rare instances. Am I misremembering that Van Gundier said he was a former teacher, but now lawyer? How can you then spout such nonsense? These are two separate issues.
The woman told KHOU that she was concerned about the connections between henna, Hindu, and Islam. According to the article, some Muslim brides practice in the tradition of henna on their wedding days.
As far as I understand it, it's an Indian thing, mostly done by Hindus, some Muslims adopted it because they are also Indian. How does that make this specifically a Muslim issue.
It doesn't. The lady is blowing it out of proportion for this reason. She specifically stated this connection as part of her anger.
I don't see how an email saying that there would be a multicultural day with henna involved tells parents that they are going to be drawing on your kid with ink that lasts days. Even if you know what henna is, it would be a safe bet that the school was just going to have people show up that are inked, not ink your kid. It would be like kids going to a ranch and sending out an email about how branding might be involved....a kid shows up home looking like this they are going to be pissed off. No one would think the school would be stupid enough to do that to the kids. I'm sure no one thought the school would be stupid enough to use semi-permanent ink on kids either.
You are trying to make it seem like her motive is all about Islam, when the facts don't support that assertion.
