Should schools have the power to. . .

[1prophet]

It is amazing how times change and people forget the battles fought over similar issues




As might be expected of a school with Foley's legacy, The Red Tide, necessarily published in obscura, was avidly read on the University High campus. When the school's authorities eventually acted to stifle its distribution in 1974, they found themselves dragged into court by one of their students, Susannah Bright, who sought redress through a precedent established by high school students in Des Moines, Iowa, whose wearing of black arm bands in protest of the Vietnam War had led to the landmark case, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School System (1969).

In Tinker, the U.S. Supreme Court established that secondary students "did not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse door." The Justices declared that "personal intercommunication among the students... is not only an inevitable part of attending school; it is also an important part of the educational process."54 The court further noted that this student communication, especially the expression of an unpopular view, may cause trouble and lead to disturbance, but, "our history says that it is this sort of hazardous freedom--this kind of openness--that is the basis of our national strength and of the independence and vigor of Americans who grow up and live in this relatively permissive, and often disputatious society."55

In the case of University High School 10th grader Susannah Bright v. the Los Angeles Unified School District (1976), the California Supreme Court determined that both on campus and off-campus publications were protected under Tinker, even though "newspapers of this genre typically contain material which criticizes school administration, challenges the principles and policies of public education and covers controversial topics outside the curriculum-all frequently couched in strident and blunt, even earthy language."56

 

[Cuda1447]

no. public schools are not the the police department, cia, fbi, homeland security or anything else. They are there to teach kids. If a kid misbehaves at school functions, they should be punished.

If a kid pulls his little sisters hair, steals his dads alcohol, cheats in a basketball game with the neighborhood kids, looks at porn on his home computer, calls his grandma a b!tch, or says his 6th grade teacher is sh!tty and needs to learn to shower - THE SCHOOL SHOULD STAY THE FVCK OUT OF IT. ITS NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS.

Now, if they kid does something illegal outside of school, such as threatening a teachers life, smoking weed, speeding, murder etc... the school should STILL STAY THE FVCK OUTTA IT, LET THE REAL AUTHORITIES HANDLE THE PROBLEM.


Get my point? Schools are not police, they are education institutions. Lets keep them that way please.

 

[Cooler]

No. If the kid commits a criminal act on the computer then it is the Police/FBI /CIA job to go after the kid. I know some schools and colleges will expel you for some of the legal activities you can do on line if someone snitches on you.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: thecrecarc
NO! what kids do off campus is NONE of the buisness of schools. kids off campus is PARENT's responsibiliy. NOT schools. what kids do off campus is NO buisiness of schools, and schools have zero right to do jack about it.

so homework is illegal ?

 

[newParadigm]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Nope. Like you pointed out, if something is already illegal then there are ways to address it. If someone defames you file a civil suit, if they threaten you call the police, etc.

But NO institution/organization/agency/corporation/business/individual should have any lawful authority over what you do when you're not on their property or on their time. That means schools have no power over kids, employers have no power over employees, governments have no power over citizens, etc. The individual should be the basis of all rights.

Exactly why drug testing should not be legal.

 

[FallenHero]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
If a school has a policy that you must show respect to teachers then it makes sense to enforce it off-campus as well.

The fox example included insulting a teacher in a way that might not be criminal but was certainly disrespectful:

"One students was expelled for posting explicit comments about a teacher on MySpace,"

Since parents have stopped being responsible for their kids, the schools have no choice but to take over some of the missing parental discipline for the spoiled punks.

So apparently teaching freedom of speech and opinion doesn't mean the school will follow that. Got it.

 

[newParadigm]

Originally posted by: DLeRium
God I can't believe you guys are all saying NO. Schools already have powers when you get into trouble drinking or partying even in non-school relatedt hings. If you are a HS student and you attend some frat party and you get busted, you can get disciplined by the school.

I mean if the school doesnt like the fact that a student is posting opinions on teachers, that's too bad. Deal with it, but if the student is doing borderline dangerous stuff (questionable in legal status or even if it's barely within the legal limits), I think the school can exercise some authority.

Not at my school you couldn't. Only at school sponsored events that were off campus could you get an in-school punishment, or if arrested outside of school at an unrelated function. Examples: Joe sells Marijuana at the Ski Slopes during the School organized skiclub. Joe will be punished by the school and possibly the law. Joe sells Marijuana at the Ski Slopes when the School SkiClub is NOT in session. Joe can get punished by the law, but not the school. However, if he is arrested, he could be expelled. For things that are not illegal, I have no idea, its never even entered into my fram of reference.

 

[newParadigm]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: thecrecarc
NO! what kids do off campus is NONE of the buisness of schools. kids off campus is PARENT's responsibiliy. NOT schools. what kids do off campus is NO buisiness of schools, and schools have zero right to do jack about it.

so homework is illegal ?

No its ther parents responsability to make sure it gets done, why I think punishment for not doing it is BS. Though notifying the parent would be good.

 

[montanafan]

Kind of strange to read this thread and the one about the shootings at the Amish school one after the other. In the other thread some people are advocating having teachers carry concealed weapons to keep the schools safe and in this one they are saying that what kids say and do outside of school is none of the school's business. Do you really think that what kids do off campus has no affect on what happens on campus?

Try telling that to the people at Columbine High School who notified the police when they read some of the things posted on Eric Harris' website prior to the attacks. Poking their noses into what students were doing and saying during their free time almost prevented that tragedy. An affidavit was written up to search Harris' home based on what he was saying on the site, but for some reason was never filed. Maybe someone decided that it was more important to protect his right to freedom of speech than to try to prevent a massacre.

I'd rather see the schools being a little nosey about what kids are doing, saying, and planning during their free time than handing out guns to the teachers to try to keep kids safe in school. Sure some might take things too far, but some others might take them far enough as they should have in the Columbine instance.

 

[FallenHero]

Originally posted by: montanafan
Kind of strange to read this thread and the one about the shootings at the Amish school one after the other. In the other thread some people are advocating having teachers carry concealed weapons to keep the schools safe and in this one they are saying that what kids say and do outside of school is none of the school's business. Do you really think that what kids do off campus has no affect on what happens on campus?

Try telling that to the people at Columbine High School who notified the police when they read some of the things posted on Eric Harris' website prior to the attacks. Poking their noses into what students were doing and saying during their free time almost prevented that tragedy. An affidavit was written up to search Harris' home based on what he was saying on the site, but for some reason was never filed. Maybe someone decided that it was more important to protect his right to freedom of speech than to try to prevent a massacre.

I'd rather see the schools being a little nosey about what kids are doing, saying, and planning during their free time than handing out guns to the teachers to try to keep kids safe in school. Sure some might take things too far, but some others might take them far enough as they should have in the Columbine instance.

How far are you willing to go to protect the kids at a school? Willing to ban the parents from owning any sort of firearm? Willing to pay for multiple officers stationed at the school? Random pat-searches and metal detectors? Where are you going to draw the line.

The school shootings are sad, and I regret that they happened. But taking away freedoms for the sake of a tiny bit of security isn't the answer. If people want violence in school, they will find a way to bring it there, regardless of laws or school rules.

 

[shoRunner]

too late, it already happens with regularity.

 

[Rangoric]

Originally posted by: FallenHero
How far are you willing to go to protect the kids at a school? Willing to ban the parents from owning any sort of firearm? Willing to pay for multiple officers stationed at the school? Random pat-searches and metal detectors? Where are you going to draw the line.

The school shootings are sad, and I regret that they happened. But taking away freedoms for the sake of a tiny bit of security isn't the answer. If people want violence in school, they will find a way to bring it there, regardless of laws or school rules.

Say the hell what? Who are you replying to, because the post you quoted sure as hell didn't say what you are saying it said. So please clear that up.

 

[montanafan]

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: montanafan
Kind of strange to read this thread and the one about the shootings at the Amish school one after the other. In the other thread some people are advocating having teachers carry concealed weapons to keep the schools safe and in this one they are saying that what kids say and do outside of school is none of the school's business. Do you really think that what kids do off campus has no affect on what happens on campus?

Try telling that to the people at Columbine High School who notified the police when they read some of the things posted on Eric Harris' website prior to the attacks. Poking their noses into what students were doing and saying during their free time almost prevented that tragedy. An affidavit was written up to search Harris' home based on what he was saying on the site, but for some reason was never filed. Maybe someone decided that it was more important to protect his right to freedom of speech than to try to prevent a massacre.

I'd rather see the schools being a little nosey about what kids are doing, saying, and planning during their free time than handing out guns to the teachers to try to keep kids safe in school. Sure some might take things too far, but some others might take them far enough as they should have in the Columbine instance.

How far are you willing to go to protect the kids at a school? Willing to ban the parents from owning any sort of firearm? Willing to pay for multiple officers stationed at the school? Random pat-searches and metal detectors? Where are you going to draw the line.

The school shootings are sad, and I regret that they happened. But taking away freedoms for the sake of a tiny bit of security isn't the answer. If people want violence in school, they will find a way to bring it there, regardless of laws or school rules.

"How far are you willing to go to protect the kids at a school?"

As far as possible.

Ban parents from having guns? No way, I like guns and enjoy target shooting.

Officers stationed at the school? Don't have them here.

Metal detectors? None here.

We haven't needed any of those things to prevent some possibly violent acts from taking place at our schools. What has worked though was being made aware of what kids were doing and saying outside of school.

In one instance the school administration was told that a student was overheard outside of school saying that he was going to bring a gun to school to scare a bully out of bothering him. The principal and assistant principal confronted him about it as soon as he arrived at school and he turned the gun over to them. He said he wasn't planning on actually shooting anyone with it, just scaring them, but who knows what might have happened?

Too many fights to describe have been prevented from occurring during school when school officials were made aware of what was being said or planned outside of school.

Drug dealers have been caught at the school or on or near school grounds because of school officials being made aware of things that are going on outside of school.

Non-custodial parents planning to take their kids away from the custodial parent illegally by grabbing them at school has been prevented by the school being made aware of things that are happening outside of school.

Being made aware of reckless driving by students on their way to school, and of kids meeting up and drinking and then driving to school, has made it possible for the school to notify law enforcement or parents or to take away parking permits and probably prevented accidents and injuries to students and others.

Kids planning to bring alcohol to school and give it out to their frends and sell to others has been caught and stopped because of finding out what was being planned during their time away from school.

All of these instances came from someone telling what they heard said outside of school, but if the kids had posted these things on a web site or page it would have been the same thing.

You can't pretend that what kids do outside of school has nothing to do with what they do at school. And if you really care about them and want to keep them safe, as I would think most teachers and administrators working in school do, then you have to pay attention to what they are doing and what is going on in their lives outside of school.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: montanafan
I'd rather see the schools being a little nosey about what kids are doing, saying, and planning during their free time than handing out guns to the teachers to try to keep kids safe in school. Sure some might take things too far, but some others might take them far enough as they should have in the Columbine instance.

OK, how about this. At my old university, there was a big stink because the school was considering adding additional, academic penalties for students who got arrested for alcohol-related incidents. In other words, they could be off-campus, drinking with a bunch of their buddies from other schools; get punished by the cops, and on TOP of that get in trouble with the school. Whereas their friends, who were equally guilty, would get a lesser punishment. Why? This wasn't some private school that made you sign some sort of lifestyle contract, it's a public university.

Paying attention to off-campus behavior to make sure it doesn't spill onto campus? Maybe. Punishing off-campus behavior as standard policy? You may say proactive; I say thought police.

It's BS; it doesn't concern the school at all. It's even more basic a right and less of a debateable issue than the case in Tinker vs. Des Moines.

 

[fatdragondzc]

i think no, but school the school does if you are logged on to their networks.

 

[montanafan]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: montanafan
I'd rather see the schools being a little nosey about what kids are doing, saying, and planning during their free time than handing out guns to the teachers to try to keep kids safe in school. Sure some might take things too far, but some others might take them far enough as they should have in the Columbine instance.

OK, how about this. At my old university, there was a big stink because the school was considering adding additional, academic penalties for students who got arrested for alcohol-related incidents. In other words, they could be off-campus, drinking with a bunch of their buddies from other schools; get punished by the cops, and on TOP of that get in trouble with the school. Whereas their friends, who were equally guilty, would get a lesser punishment. Why? This wasn't some private school that made you sign some sort of lifestyle contract, it's a public university.

Paying attention to off-campus behavior to make sure it doesn't spill onto campus? Maybe. Punishing off-campus behavior as standard policy? You may say proactive; I say thought police.

It's BS; it doesn't concern the school at all. It's even more basic a right and less of a debateable issue than the case in Tinker vs. Des Moines.

I understand the point you're trying to make, but the example you've given has nothing to do with what I've said. First of all, you said academic penalties were assessed for an alcohol related arrest off campus. Do you mean in the way of grades, etc? That would make no sense at all as far as I can see.

But I could see the school wanting to get involved in some way if the students are having problems with alcohol that are leading to them being arrested for things like auto accidents, fighting, vandalism, etc. The school could see those as things that the students may carry over to their campus life, and the school could also see it as a part of their committment to their students' growth and development to try to intervene in some way such as counseling, rehabilitation, etc., but punishing them academically sounds ridiculous and counter-productive to me.

Edited for grammar.

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: montanafan
Kind of strange to read this thread and the one about the shootings at the Amish school one after the other. In the other thread some people are advocating having teachers carry concealed weapons to keep the schools safe and in this one they are saying that what kids say and do outside of school is none of the school's business. Do you really think that what kids do off campus has no affect on what happens on campus?

Try telling that to the people at Columbine High School who notified the police when they read some of the things posted on Eric Harris' website prior to the attacks. Poking their noses into what students were doing and saying during their free time almost prevented that tragedy. An affidavit was written up to search Harris' home based on what he was saying on the site, but for some reason was never filed. Maybe someone decided that it was more important to protect his right to freedom of speech than to try to prevent a massacre.

I'd rather see the schools being a little nosey about what kids are doing, saying, and planning during their free time than handing out guns to the teachers to try to keep kids safe in school. Sure some might take things too far, but some others might take them far enough as they should have in the Columbine instance.

How far are you willing to go to protect the kids at a school? Willing to ban the parents from owning any sort of firearm? Willing to pay for multiple officers stationed at the school? Random pat-searches and metal detectors? Where are you going to draw the line.

The school shootings are sad, and I regret that they happened. But taking away freedoms for the sake of a tiny bit of security isn't the answer. If people want violence in school, they will find a way to bring it there, regardless of laws or school rules.

Exactly. I don't think people understand the term 'diminishing returns', you have to severely limit people's freedoms in order to obtain the kind of security to prevent all school shootings. Ironically enough, most of the shootings were probably caused by emo equivalent students and that if they were allowed more freedoms, quite possibly it wouldn't happen at all.

Our government is really like bigbrother and is always trying to "take care of us" when what it should really be doing is letting the damn kids figure it out on their own. People seemingly refuse to learn their lesson from other people screwing up so basically we should let them figure it out for themselves.

 

[Apathetic]

Absolutely not.

Dave

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: thecrecarc

Originally posted by: DLeRium
God I can't believe you guys are all saying NO. Schools already have powers when you get into trouble drinking or partying even in non-school relatedt hings. If you are a HS student and you attend some frat party and you get busted, you can get disciplined by the school.

I mean if the school doesnt like the fact that a student is posting opinions on teachers, that's too bad. Deal with it, but if the student is doing borderline dangerous stuff (questionable in legal status or even if it's barely within the legal limits), I think the school can exercise some authority.

yes, everyone knows blogs and myspace are REAL dangurous. as long as u have common sense the shouldnt be that bad

(for the record, i dont have a blog, and they day i die will be they day i get myspace, i dislike it inmensly and think myspace sucks. but schools have no power over if ppl use myspace.)

and as states above, illegal things will still be delt normaly

BTW, Frat's get busted because they are affiliated with the school, i.e. under their jurisdiction.

Schools don't have any authority outside of school.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: newParadigm

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Nope. Like you pointed out, if something is already illegal then there are ways to address it. If someone defames you file a civil suit, if they threaten you call the police, etc.

But NO institution/organization/agency/corporation/business/individual should have any lawful authority over what you do when you're not on their property or on their time. That means schools have no power over kids, employers have no power over employees, governments have no power over citizens, etc. The individual should be the basis of all rights.

Exactly why drug testing should not be legal.

Hmmm, I never thought of it that way before. I kind of agree with you even...except in cases where you are tested for cause during work hours. I mean, if you're on the forklift and run somebody over or whatever, then I can see testing you right then to see if you're actively altered by something. But random testing would have to be out the window.

 

[Alex]

Originally posted by: skrilla
No.

no.

you mean like blogs and stuff?

i dunno like 10 years ago at my school some kid sniffed glue at home during the weekend and somehow the principal found out and expelled the kid.
it was kinda cruel but he was a fsckup