Poll: Am I In The Wrong Here??

[arsenicCatnip]

At my school if we had our music players/cell phones out and they were seen they could be taken away without warning. If a teacher even saw earbuds it was taken. The simple solution was to not have it out.

I brought my mp3 with me everyday to and from school and I put it away before I got to school and didn't take it out until I was off school grounds. You could have done the same and kept it your pocket or backpack and nothing would have happened.

I did the same thing throughout high school, and never got into trouble.

You took a simple request ("Put your headphones away") and turned it into something much bigger than it should have been. Seriously, there isn't any question about whether or not you were in the wrong. The teacher is the authority figure in the classroom, and you just disobeyed him. Therefore he punished you. QED.

 

[Jamash]

He bounced towards me demanding that i put away my headphones, i looked at him and said calmly to him that i dont see the point because my ipod is off and im not using them.

Why is it so important for you to have your headphones out? I don't see the point because your iPod is off and you're not using them.

It's much more pointless to have your headphones out when your not using them and your iPod is off, than it is to put them away and follow a very simple rule.

What possible function can a pair of inactive headphones perform that is worth breaking the rules over?

However, if there wasn't any point behind you having your headphones on display, ie. if you weren't making a fashion statement or a political statement by breaking the rule, but instead you just couldn't be bothered to put them away after using them, then you're still in the wrong (even more so) because laziness isn't an excuse for rule breaking... in fact as you grow up and experience more of life, you'll find that laziness isn't an valid excuse for many things.

Think of this as a valuable life lesson and learn that just because you can't see the point of a rule and can't be bothered to follow it, that doesn't mean you shouldn't obey it.
Take stopping an junctions for example, just because the road seems clear to you and you don't see the point of stopping, or just can't be bothered to stop your car fully, that doesn't mean a cop won't pull you over for breaking the law. He might even arrest you and confiscate your car if you argue with him and tell him that the law (and by extension his career) is pointless.

 

[starwarsgeek]

Sounds like you could have saved yourself a lot of trouble by just putting the headphones away....

And, yeah, being disrespectful to your teacher...for no reason...means you were in the wrong.

 

[infohippie]

It's a stupid rule, and the teacher was an ass, but you were still in the wrong to defy him.

 

[rmb1983]

By the way I do agree, that teacher sounds like quite the douche.

The teacher made a simple request, and the student retorted with a snide remark.
While his reaction to that may have not been the most professional response, he didn't show any sort of disrespect to the student until said student showed it to him. Sure, most of the class were being idiots, but sometimes a person in an authoritative position has to enforce something trivial to make a point.
However, the teacher in question may or may not be a total asshat. Even still, just like in the real world, there are rules against a great many pointless things, which will all, at one time or another, be enforced. Sadly, there is no rule against being an idiot, which is something the OP showcased the rest of his classmates as being guilty of.

OT: Pull up your socks. You were aware of the rule, and you broke it. Punishment is only fitting.
That being said, pick your battles a little better in the future. Arguing with a teacher over a nonsensical rule is not going to get it changed, just cause you grief in the form of punishment for breaking a rule, and the ire of the teacher who has to enforce it, because they'll see you as a troublemaker (their own disposition is irrelevant).
His reaction wasn't the greatest, but it's certainly a reaction that most of us would entertain if someone was snippy in response to a valid request. You may have not intended to be snide, but that's definitely how your response comes across.

 

[ultrachicken]

I see no "right" party in this scenario. The school has a stupid rule, yes, but the way you resisted such a small, pointless rule was also not the brightest way to approach the situation. You could argue that you were trying to question the rule, but you don't need to break it to do so.

And, you realize that if people could get away with keeping their headphones on by saying that they weren't playing music on them, everyone would do that regardless of whether or not it's true?

 

[Con Carne]

You were both wrong. Rules are rules. Despite what the class was doing, you shouldn't have had your Ipod out in the first place. Also, who gives a rats ass about what the rest of the class was doing. Teachers have to silence class rooms all the time. All that mattered was what went down between you and your teacher. On the same note though, (from what I've read) your teacher didn't have to be a douche.

Remember, there is your side of the story, his side of the story and the truth.

I'm not saying you're a liar, but I'm sure there were things left out, or things you didn't pick up on, considering you were the only one in class "doing your work"

 

[KarlMonster]

(sighs)

Someone was forced to make that unreasonable rule. Largely because of problems related to unruly students. [No, I didn't need to call upon my fabulous powers over time and space to figure that out.] Individual teachers/instructors/whomever then have the utterly thankless task of urging compliance with these rules. Would it have made any difference if you liked this particular teacher?
It shouldn't have made any difference.

The OP points out that the other students around him were behaving poorly. Lets go ahead and borrow a "Yahtzee-ism" and say that the whole classroom is being a horde of "hooting dickholes." Dickholes or no, their behavior does not excuse your behavior in any way.

You knew what the rules were. You didn't follow them. An authority figure pointed out your transgression, and you responded in an offensive manner. In short, the rules were there, you were not in compliance, either from action or inaction - it doesn't factually matter which. Then you chose to be downright disrespectful.

Allegedly, you are supposed to become an adult someday. Ideally, that is a person whom takes responsibility for their actions. Whether or not that happens might as well be up to Ye Olde Majik 8-Ball. Go ahead and give it a shake.
IF you believe you were right, here's the future version:

"Sir, were you aware that you were going 85 miles per hour?"

"Fuck you officer! Why didn't you pull over someone else!?"

Have fun explaining why you're right.

 

[Navvan]

Snip

The teacher made a simple request, and the student retorted with a snide remark.
While his reaction to that may have not been the most professional response, he didn't show any sort of disrespect to the student until said student showed it to him. Sure, most of the class were being idiots, but sometimes a person in an authoritative position has to enforce something trivial to make a point.
However, the teacher in question may or may not be a total asshat. Even still, just like in the real world, there are rules against a great many pointless things, which will all, at one time or another, be enforced. Sadly, there is no rule against being an idiot, which is something the OP showcased the rest of his classmates as being guilty of.

OT: Pull up your socks. You were aware of the rule, and you broke it. Punishment is only fitting.
That being said, pick your battles a little better in the future. Arguing with a teacher over a nonsensical rule is not going to get it changed, just cause you grief in the form of punishment for breaking a rule, and the ire of the teacher who has to enforce it, because they'll see you as a troublemaker (their own disposition is irrelevant).
His reaction wasn't the greatest, but it's certainly a reaction that most of us would entertain if someone was snippy in response to a valid request. You may have not intended to be snide, but that's definitely how your response comes across.

This statement is essentially how I see the situation as well. I would like to add though that
the rule exists for a reason even if you don't agree with it or that reason. In the case of ear buds being out during class is a direct sign of possible ipod/ect use. This conflicts with the ideal goal of the school to actually teach you and thus a rule was made against it with an attached punishment to discourage use. Could the rules be more lenient and still be effective, possibly. Are the rules entirely fair and comprehensive, no. But it wasn't arbitrary and thus no reason besides self indulgence to break it. The fact that you then acted disrespectful when requested to comply to the rules warranted punishment. Regardless of how evil eyed and out to get you the teacher was in your view or actuality.

The real issue hear is why the teacher didn't put a stop to the disruptive behavior of the others in the room as well.

 

[infohippie]

The OP points out that the other students around him were behaving poorly. Lets go ahead and borrow a "Yahtzee-ism" and say that the whole classroom is being a horde of "hooting dickholes." Dickholes or no, their behavior does not excuse your behavior in any way.

Good point. Teachers generally have to deal all day, every day with a room full of 30 or so kids, most of whom don't want to be there and are quite happy to be disruptive, obnoxious little scrotes rather than do the work they're supposed to or listen to anything the teacher has to say. Not all students are like that, of course, but I remember back in my high school days at least half of them were habitually little shits like this.

The last thing a teacher wants to deal with is one of his charming little albatrosses thinking a school is the right location to engage in civil disobedience as a protest against a school rule. No matter how stupid the rule, if it's not actually stepping on one of your genuine civil rights then the best thing is just to let it go, don't make waves, and concentrate on learning what you can and getting the hell out of there come graduation day.

BTW, OP, I'm not meaning to say you are one of the disruptive sort, just that the teacher has to deal with this sort all day and is probably not in the mood for anything that'll make his day harder.

 

[Yokai]

There's a difference between what's expected/legal and what's reasonable/right. Yeah, the rule is ridiculous, and you were right in the sense that it's a stupid thing to get worked up over. However, being in a situation where someone else is making the rules, you have to gauge whether or not standing up to them is worth it, because honestly, people in power tend not to give a fuck what you think. So if you're okay with the detention, yeah, you were in the right. If you think it's unfair and pointless...well, it is, but you should have seen it coming.

 

[rmb1983]

Someone was forced to make that unreasonable rule.

This statement is essentially how I see the situation as well. I would like to add though that the rule exists for a reason even if you don't agree with it or that reason. In the case of ear buds being out during class is a direct sign of possible ipod/ect use. This conflicts with the ideal goal of the school to actually teach you and thus a rule was made against it with an attached punishment to discourage use. Could the rules be more lenient and still be effective, possibly. Are the rules entirely fair and comprehensive, no. But it wasn't arbitrary and thus no reason besides self indulgence to break it. The fact that you then acted disrespectful when requested to comply to the rules warranted punishment. Regardless of how evil eyed and out to get you the teacher was in your view or actuality.

The real issue hear is why the teacher didn't put a stop to the disruptive behavior of the others in the room as well.

The general reasoning behind a "No headphones/CD players/walkmans/etc." (yes, I'm old) is that they want to discourage distractions, and eliminate the potential of any cheating that could be concocted by the student body. At any rate, there's several ways it can serve as a distraction to not only the person in question, but potentially to the rest of the class, as well, so it's generally in place to put a stop to that.
It might seem trite, and be largely trivial, but it still has its purpose. That's hardly unreasonable.

 

[kickyourass]

While I sympathize in the fact that I too had some of the most horrid human beings currently alive as school teachers, when in school there's a time to fight against the rules, and there's a time to sit there and do as you're told. This was the latter.

 

[SamtheDeathclaw]

You knowingly broke a rule, then refused to obey the teacher. It doesn't matter if the rules are stupid or not, they're the rules. Whether or not you agree with them, you obey them, or you get punished. That's what modern society's built off of, more or less.

 

[Twilight_guy]

You had your headphones out, which is forbidden by the rules. He told you to put them away, you refused, and are now paying the consequences of your actions. Yes the rule is rather stupid, but you still broke it. So no, your not in the right.

This ^

When you choose to refuse the rules and your teacher's instruction you are being defiant. If you don't like the rule there are ways to protest them but this doesn't sound like a proper avenue. Even so, if you choose to use resistance as a means of protest then you must be willing to accept the consequences. Resiting a rule as a means of protest and thinking you can avoid the punishment is not logical. That's really all their is to it.

 

[Caligulust]

Can't say much that hasn't been said already.

It was a rule, you broke it, then argued it. He gave you a chance and you blew it by trying to undermine his authority. The rule serves a purpose. I attend a high school that has distributed iPods and earphones to all of the students. The earphones serve one purpose, and that is to listen to something, possibly causing a disturbance. Teachers do not have time to police your volume level should you listen to something, or confirm you are paying attention while they are lecturing. So it simpler just have a rule against them all together.