Stupidity does not adequately explain why they are considering bringing charges of a "hoax bomb", or sent this letter home with the other students: http://www.irvingisd.net/cms/lib010/TX01917973/Centricity/Do... [PDF] Therefore, malice.

"I recommend using this opportunity to talk with your child about the Student Code of Conduct and specifically not bringing items to school that are prohibited."

As a parent, can I see the list of "items... that are prohibited"? I'd be pretty shocked if "clock" is actually on there.

That's the crazy part to me. They still seem to think and act as if it was a bomb.

Remember the Boston Lite-Brite thing? (A more legit incident, since apparently quite a few people were spooked by the devices, but still a case where the authorities over-reacted and refused to back down).

Sticking to the line that something was a 'bomb hoax' keeps the responsibility with the accused: they shouldn't have perpetrated a bomb hoax; not we shouldn't have over-reacted to an innocuous object.

Relevant Rick and Morty: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6d6qDcPz7Uo

Well, the alternative is being wrong.

To be fair, it wouldn't surprise me if 'replica firearm' was on there.

Then again, this is Texas.

Stupidity adequately explains the initial reaction. Bringing charges is merely after-the-fact butt-covering. The whole world knows you're stupid, but if you can get the entire legal system to be just as stupid, it's no longer your fault!

Remember the Aqua Teen Hunger Force "bomb" scare in Boston? The city rigorously pursued legal action to spare their police department the embarrassment of having wasted millions of dollars carefully dismantling DIY Lite-Brites.

Once authority figures make a decision, they fear backing down from it, because they (unfortunately often correctly) believe that doubling down will force the far less well-funded citizen to fold, usually in exchange for a less severe "punishment."

This isn't limited to authority figures. Most people, when faced with evidence that they were publicly wrong, try to save face by doubling down on their original convictions.

I'd like to jump on the back of this and make the point that, referring to the clock project in question, it seems a lie to label the item as a "hoax bomb" as if it were actually intended to even be a bomb, let alone an article of the hoax variety. Not to mention the obvious claim of guilt by association that the prosecuting argument seems to imply, I would add that it also useful to distinguish the reality of the situation so as to ensure that "hoax bomb" doesn't catch on. "Clock thought to be a bomb" would be a more accurate representation of the situation.

Not sure if there's a formal definition, but this page distinguishes between a scare and a hoax:

"Though city prosecutors eventually concluded there was no ill intent involved in the placing of the ads, the city continues to refer to the event as a "bomb hoax" rather than a "scare." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Boston_bomb_scare

They never thought it was real, or they would have evacuated the school.

Ignorance easily explains this unfortunate, embarrassing incident.

The boy's father is from Sudan and is well known for being outspoken against anti-Islamic policies. To an unworldly south/midwesterner that spells "potential terrorist". It's not too much of a stretch to see that diagnosis extended to the son.

His father ran for President of Sudan, and came in fourth.

Ignorance that was likely being exploited for political purposes. As in, his father probably encouraged his son to do this. The father knew that it would likely cause someone to freak out, student or teacher; that it beeped helped and even better that it was in a metal case. There was no reason to bring the item in, let alone a the week of 9/11.

The school admins reacted as stereo typically badly as they could have hoped. It should have been assessed quickly and immediately removed from the school. Instead it just got stupid quick.

So this father will now get images of himself with his son with our President. We get some immediate attention to the horrible plight of Muslims in America (there isn't any horrible plight other than some people don't trust them)....

> Stupidity does not adequately explain why they are considering bringing charges

No but embarrassment may explain quite a lot of it.

stupidity + malice

Calling it a hoax bomb is ass covering by shifting the blame to the person who happens to be the only adult in that bumfuck town's government.

True, though stupidity is not seeing how much this is going to cost them, ultimately.

If the kids have any intelligence at all they're only going to grow up hating the bureaucracy.

Sadly this is an important part of education.

There's a variant of Clarke's third law which applies here: "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice."

@mattkevan could you provide a citation for this? A quick search nets Arthur C. Clarke's three laws, with the third reading:

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - 1973, Hazards of Prophecy: The Failure of Imagination

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws

No citation is necessary, they're just quoting a clever anonymous adaptation. It's not anything Arthur C. Clarke ever said.

Hanlons 3rd law ?

Stupidity is not an excuse for being an asshole.

In this case, we're dealing with malicious stupidity. Edge of the razor?

Power corrupts. As such we should always assume malice when dealing with people in power.

Hanlon's razor is bullshit when it comes to bureaucratic institutions shifting blame to cover their own asses

That's for dealing with authentic human beings, not with mindless order-followers.

"Two things can be true" - me

It seems more like some kind of quiet collective insanity to me.

A wise tool to be employed by the malicious.

Hanlon's razor doesn't apply to politics.

Hanlon's razor is a pretty stupid quote here, there definitely is no need to distinguish stupidity from malice here. The people responsible for this mess should probably lose their jobs. (Based on the story as it was presented here)

Yes but should the be fired on account of malice or stupidity? (Both valid causes for firing)

Which ever is fastest.

How about just "misconduct"

Malicious stupidity.