Are Schools The New Juvenile Court?

[Matter-Eater Lad]

Are Schools The New Juvenile Court?

 

A couple of stories that I ran across, yesterday had me questioning the role of public schools in determining how justice is served to students that attend. There has been some news about new policies that have been introduced by schools in the Indianapolis area. Schools will expel or suspend students for things that do not even happen at school.

 

Anything that student writes or posts online; blogs, posts on MySpace or FaceBook, photos, movies, and I assume anything that is posted elsewhere, like forums or social news sites (as long as the poster can be identified), can be used against them at school. Who actually determines that the content is offensive or disruptive remains to be asked.

 

I know that there are a lot of things posted by people online that could be considered defamatory, obscene, proprietary or libelous. There have been extreme cases of people loosing their jobs over things that are revealed online. The fact that some kids would be denied an education over this is baffling, though. In cases where something is actually illegal, whether criminal or civil, it should be handled through the right channels, not by the school system.

 

Part of the policy on internet usage at Carmel Clay has me wondering where the lines are, and if the students even “know”:

 

“The superintendent shall also ensure that staff and students are adequately informed about disciplinary actions that will be taken if corporation technology and/or networks are abused in any way or used in an illegal or unethical manner.”

 

The parts that worry me are the “abused in any way” and “unethical” words. What, exactly does that mean? If I get 100 comments on this post, answering that, I’ll guarrantee that each answer will be different. It seems like they make sure to adequately inform their staff and students about how they’ll be punnished, but leave a huge grey area about what “offences” are punnishable.

 

One of the other stories that made my jaw drop, yesterday is more of a case about descrimination (from what it looks like), but the fact that the “school” was involved in this, at all is simply amazing! The story from the Mercury News starts like this:

 

“Hold a Halloween party. Invite a few high school cheerleaders who arrive in lingerie-like costumes. Mix in some male prep athletes. Then add other students who smoke and drink. Take snapshots. Post them on MySpace.

 

What happens?

 

Five girls end up suspended from the cheerleading squad, no boys are punished and one of the cheerleaders sues the school district for sex discrimination.”

 

First of all, there’s nothing “at all” wrong with wearing “lingerie-like” costumes to a Halloween Party. That’s what the holiday is about, dressing up in costumes. Hell, I’ve even attended a party dressed in linger… never mind… the fact that their choice of costume might have been a little more “revealing” than what some teachers or administrators would have liked to see shouldn’t even be an issue. That would be like being kicked out of church for choosing to wear a devil-like costume on Halloween.

 

If the girls were suspended from cheerleading for the smoking and drinking that was happening at the party, why not take some kind of action against everybody involved? (UPDATE: School officials are now saying that they did.) The fact is, though, this is NOT the school’s business. Some kids drink and smoke at 16 years-old. That’s the facts! I started smoking at the age of 12 and started drinking (pretty heavily) at the age of 14. Was it a good choice? Probably not. Was it against the law? Yes! If I got caught drinking “at school”, I would have expected to be suspended, though.

 

We’re seeing more and more of this type of “punnishment” of morals and ethics being handled by the school system. I fear that this type of overstepping will lead to the end of “freedom of expression” and create a place where limited speech is commonplace. If people are limited in what they can and cannot say for the fear of being held “morally” responsible, how can they be considered truthful or honest? In other words, if people are made to keep their true thoughts and feelings hidden because they might not be politically correct or popular, how will we know what their true thoughts and feelings are?

 

A quote from author, journalist and pundit Christopher Hitchens at a debate held on October 18th asks about who should set these limits:

 

“Who will you appoint?” Hitchens asked the three speakers opposing the motion. “Who will be the one who says, ‘I know exactly where the limits should be, I know how far you can go and I know when you’ve gone too far, and I’ll decide that?’ Who do you think, who do you know, who have you heard of, who have you read about in history to whom you’d give that job?”

 

 

http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2006/10/28/are-schools-the-new-juvenile-court-webfeed-central/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwebfeedcentral.com%2F2006%2F10%2F28%2Fare-schools-the-new-juvinile-court%2F&frame=true

[Matter-Eater Lad]

Were the girls also suspended from school' date=' or just the squad? If they were only suspended from the squad, it could be argued that because they are representing the school, they should be held to a higher standard of conduct, so as not to tarnish the school's name. If the males weren't held to the same standard, I absolutely agree that something is wrong, but the solution would be to punish them in the same way.[/quote']

 

 

Im not sure if they were suspended from school. But if they were suspended from school, thats just wrong. Its nots the school's business to moniter them after they leave.

[GazeboflossUK]

Yeah, I remember a few cases from earlier in the year when students were suspended for some bizzare out of school activites. Whatever happened to parents dealing with out of school issues....at least to some degree.

 

Also, I remember a case where a kid was to be suspended for not showing up for a vaccination...as the students parents did not want their child to have the jab. Then his parents were almost taken to court because of their childs absence.

It was all due to the attendance being "mandatory". Although if I remember correctly I think the untold truth was that there is an "Immunization Exemption" information sheet which must be requested and parents weren't informed of this.

But the kid was going to be suspended for that!?? crazy. There too were warnings at school, telling parents they could be arrested if the children weren't vaccinated.

[GazeboflossUK]

Well, yes...but

 

It's what's actually in the vaccines which is the issue. When you see stories on TV saying "Hey kids, mercury is good for you!" you have got to worry. Google it.

 

But that's another thread.

[GazeboflossUK]

Huh? I don't like conspiracies. I hate them. Funny how it took you 2 posts to say that to me.

 

"and other weird things"......Weird? How is it weird? Werid would be not wanting to care, surely?

 

"consider the internet to be an authority on all things"....I don't. And what do you consider to be the authority on all things, as you so irritatingly put it?

 

Hmm. And yes, I know what you meant in your original "public health risk" post. I would have thought most people would already have thought about that.

 

I'll have to stop becasue again, this really is going off topic, sorry nick.

[GazeboflossUK]

Oh boy.

 

Ok, you say that I believe in "non-existant conspiracies" and "weird things" like news stories that say mercury can be good for kids brains (I actually didn't mean stories aimed at kids as such). But that was actually on the news anyway. So that's not 'non-existant'. It exists.

 

Then you say 'For someone who doesn't believe that the internet is an authority on all things, you sure do tell people to "google" things an awful lot'...ha...ok, if you can find me to have said that more than twice, ever, on here since 2003 then I'll give you a signed copy of your own constitution. (signed by me) and a box of matches. And I'm actually sure to have said "Google it" probably just once.

 

How come I have defend myself against such inaccuracies.

 

Anf that's the last I'm hearing about it.

[Space Cadet]

er... getting back to the original question, as a target of some pretty traumatizing bullying when I was in elementary school, I can certainly comprehend how the internet can be used to take that kind of crap to a whole new level, with some pretty devastating results.

 

Most of the cases that I've heard about where the school got involved over out of school things were in cases like that- because they do in fact have a big impact on school life and safety.

 

At my highschool, you could get kicked out for things like going to a party where alcohol was present, but it was a private school and that was part of the deal to go there in the first place- if you don't like it, don't come here- that's what public school is for. Sure there were plenty of people who didn't like the policy, and some who got kicked out for breaking it, but they went into the school agreeing to the terms.

 

I'm surprised public schools are allowed to get involved in things like that- some girls pretty much wear lingerine to school as daywear, and the parents throw a hissyfit if the schools try to do anything about it.

 

I suppose it is interesting from a socilogical pov... The government allows freedom of expression, which is possible because most people have traditionally not been inclined to use or abuse it to it's full potential. Now that this is becoming more commonplace, and parents are less involved on average in their kids' lives, schools and employers are stepping in to fill the gap.

 

Sure you can have freedom of expression, just don't expect us to employ or educate you if you choose to use it.

 

Kind of disturbing, really.

[GazeboflossUK]

er... getting back to the original question, as a target of some pretty traumatizing bullying when I was in elementary school, I can certainly comprehend how the internet can be used to take that kind of crap to a whole new level, with some pretty devastating results.

 

Most of the cases that I've heard about where the school got involved over out of school things were in cases like that- because they do in fact have a big impact on school life and safety.

 

At my highschool, you could get kicked out for things like going to a party where alcohol was present, but it was a private school and that was part of the deal to go there in the first place- if you don't like it, don't come here- that's what public school is for. Sure there were plenty of people who didn't like the policy, and some who got kicked out for breaking it, but they went into the school agreeing to the terms.

 

I'm surprised public schools are allowed to get involved in things like that- some girls pretty much wear lingerine to school as daywear, and the parents throw a hissyfit if the schools try to do anything about it.

 

I suppose it is interesting from a socilogical pov... The government allows freedom of expression, which is possible because most people have traditionally not been inclined to use or abuse it to it's full potential. Now that this is becoming more commonplace, and parents are less involved on average in their kids' lives, schools and employers are stepping in to fill the gap.

 

Sure you can have freedom of expression, just don't expect us to employ or educate you if you choose to use it.

 

Kind of disturbing, really.

 

 

You make some good points there and I too really think that more and more parents are not looking out for their kids best interests. In alot of cases their kids can do no wrong.

[GazeboflossUK]

I didn't say you say "google it." I said you say to "google" things' date=' which I certainly can easily show; you've told me twice now. Do you want me to show you "google it"(which I didn't claim) or just "google?" And why would I care to have a signed copy of the Constitution, signed by you? Conspiracy nuts do love to be all dramatic and use hyperbole a lot, don't they?[/quote']

 

Oh god, ok, I hardly ever say "google it" or tell people to "google" things. I may have done before.

 

"Conspiracy nut" now is it?.....so cheap.

 

And, by the way, I wasn't a 'nut' when I mention the Mercury story, its true - yet you failed to look into it and called my 'nut' anyway.

 

What a cliché your turning out to be. (in this thread)