Investigators say 10 students were taken into custody after a massive brawl at Overbrook High School in West Philadelphia.
The brawl, which was captured on cell phone video, allegedly began over a post on social media.
The incident was reported at about 10:15 a.m. Monday in a third-floor hallway.
As a result of the incident, two students suffered minor injuries. A school administrator also suffered a minor leg injury.
“It’s mayhem. Students are in the halls, they’re smoking in the bathroom; cigarettes, marijuana,” said a worker at the school, who asked not to be identified. “We can’t contain them and it’s really hazardous for us working and these kids are not being educated at all.”
“We’re seeing an increase in incidents at this school this year. The good news is we have actually more police staff at this school this year than last year,” School District spokesman Fernando Gallard said.
Only three hours after the initial brawl, the unidentified school worker captured cell phone video of students running across tables in the cafeteria to witness another fight.
“It’s a zoo in here. Parents really need to come up here and see what’s going on in this school because it’s ridiculous,” said the worker.
“In an ideal world we’d have no need for abortion. But bringing a child into the world when it cannot be provided for, that there are not sufficient systems to support, is a greater sin,” Gosnell said. “I considered myself to be in a war against poverty, and I feel comfortable with the things I did and the decisions I made.”
Two stories from yesterday's newspaper:
* The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approves Norplant, a contraceptive that can keep a woman from getting pregnant for five years.
* A black research organization reports that nearly half the nation's black children are living in poverty - and that the younger the child, the more likely he or she is to be living with a single mother on welfare. "Growing numbers of them will not succeed," the study's author says.
As we read those two stories, we asked ourselves: Dare we mention them in the same breath? To do so might be considered deplorably insensitive, perhaps raising the specter of eugenics. But it would be worse to avoid drawing the logical conclusion that foolproof contraception could be invaluable in breaking the cycle of inner city poverty - one of of America's greatest challenges.
The main reason more black children are living in poverty is that the people having the most children are the ones least capable of supporting them. (The black middle class is growing, but its birth rate is very low.) This trend, as Children's Defense Fund president Marian Wright Edelman has said, ''practically guarantees the poverty of the next generation of black children."
Now there are many ways to fight back - from better prenatal care to better schools. But it's very tough to undo the damage of being born into a dysfunctional family. So why not make a major effort to reduce the number of children, of any race, born into such circumstances? (More whites than blacks live in poverty, though poor blacks make up a higher percentage of people who are more or less permanently on welfare.)
No one should be compelled to use Norplant, which involves a doctor implanting matchstick-size capsules in a woman's upper arm. But there could be incentives to do so. What if welfare mothers were offered an increased benefit for agreeing to use this new, safe, long-term contraceptive? Remember, these women already have one or more children. And they can change their minds at any point and become fertile again. (This is not Indira Gandhi offering portable radios to women who agree to be sterilized.) At the very minimum, Norplant, which will probably cost $600 to $1,000, should be made available for free to poor women.
All right, the subject makes us uncomfortable, too. But we're made even more uncomfortable by the impoverishment of black America and its effect on the nation's future. Think about it.
Instead of stirring reasoned debate, however, the editorial triggered widespread anger, especially among the Inquirer’s minority staff. Many black reporters and editors read it as meaning that the answer to poverty was to reduce the ranks of black people. The president of the Philadelphia chapter of the National Association of Black Journalists called it a brief for “cultural genocide.” Charging that the editorial showed the “white male bias rampant in American society,” the Inquirer’s minority staff circulated a petition calling for Boldt’s ouster and held two protest meetings where they branded both Kimmelman and Boldt racists.
Cobbling together an apology for the editorial, Boldt and Kimmelman granted that their suggestion had been “misguided and wrongheaded” and that the editorial itself had been “fatally flawed not by its ideas but by the way it had put things, especially its conflation of race and contraception.” Not long after the apology ran, the editorial page announced that in the future all editorials would have to be approved by the entire thirteen-member editorial board, in effect giving its three minority members veto power over any controversial position. Using the Norplant furor as leverage, minority staff were able to make a power play to bolster the paper’s “pluralism plan.” A special “minority monitoring committee” was formed to review coverage of all racial issues. Additionally, a freeze was put on the hiring of white men so that more journalists of color and women could be brought aboard – a plan that editor Maxwell King hailed as the “most aggressive” quota plan in the country. (p. 43-44)