Returning for a third outing on the bangle issue (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5), Shuggy also moves up a gear: it's now become a matter of misconduct on my part, attitudinal and discursive misdemeanours of one kind and another. If he wants to take that route, there's not much I can do about it, but for my part I'll just stay with the arguments. The signs are now clear enough that Shuggy and I have been talking past one another, and I have as little wish to prolong the exercise as he does; but there are two things I'm unwilling to let pass.
First, Shuggy suggests that, allowing the wearing of the bangle (as well as the now famous watches and ear studs), I will be stuck for a principle by which I could stop short of having to make 157 exceptions to school policy. It is hard to take this seriously and I'd be surprised if, on consideration, Shuggy himself did. There may be rules which it's possible to apply without exceptions, but most rules are not like that. Justifying one type of exception doesn't of itself let through any number of them. If a child may be excused a lesson on account of feeling ill, this doesn't mean she or he can miss the lesson for any old reason. In the same way, to argue for an exception on uniforms that you think is justified - as I have in this case: on the grounds that secularism should not forbid people the wearing of religious insignia in public spaces - doesn't mean that I think anything at all goes, like kids missing biology lessons, or what have you.
Second, Shuggy treats me like an anarchist of the school domain, someone who sees no need for schools and teachers to have authority over their pupils, and for parents and others to support them in that. Nothing could be further from the truth. Other than electronically, Shuggy doesn't know me. I may not have been at the chalkface, but for 36 years I taught in a university. I wasn't an anarchist there, as people who know me will attest - if anything, in matters obliquely related to what Shuggy and I have been discussing, more of a hardliner. I'm all for clear norms inside schools, only I don't think they should include petty prohibitions of the sort from which this whole discussion took off. Since when did support for a system of legitimate authority mean supporting authority irrespective of what it lays down?
For the rest, if Shuggy thinks I have no respect for him, or his experience or the efforts of the teaching profession more generally, he's got the wrong end of the stick. I have great respect - and I don't believe my arguments during this exchange license an inference to the contrary.