Example: most schools ban tobacco products from campus, but the school has no authority to punish a student who lights up a Marlboro across the street from the front door of the school, in plain view of all. Similarly, in this case, the school has no authority to punish students for activities off its campus which would be violations of policy had they occurred on campus.
I am not so sure after the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” case. In that case the student was suspended from school for two weeks. Yet the SCOTUS held that his activities off campus that posed a disruption to operation of the school during a student activity justified the suspension.
I am having a tough time not equating a zero tolerance drug law regarding marijuana with alcohol laws prohibiting student use on campus (and/or off). This approaches some kind of grey area where one must differentiate between a 17 year old drinking alcohol or a 17 year old smoking a fatty boom batty blunt.
I think you are wrong about school officials being able to question a student about their activities requiring them reading them their Miranda rights. But I also believe this is a major problem that comes up often--School officials say things like “if you tell me XXX, then we might be able to reduce your suspension, etc.” and coerce students into incriminating themselves.
But again, no formal criminal charges were brought. These students should be thankful that they aren’t being criminally charged.
Justin B. - 04:01pm on 01/10/2008
So, the school owns these children. Ain’t that special!
2Hotel9 - 07:01pm on 01/10/2008
I think you are wrong about school officials being able to question a student about their activities requiring them reading them their Miranda rights. But I also believe this is a major problem that comes up often--School officials say things like “if you tell me XXX, then we might be able to reduce your suspension, etc.” and coerce students into incriminating themselves.
Justin,
I know whereof I speak because I’ve gone through it. School officials used the in loco parentis doctrine as rationale for their interrogations, with no Miranda warnings of any kind, then turned their findings over to the police and the District Attorney for eventual prosecution. All for an incident which, like the one above, that happened completely off school grounds.
Public schools, government schools, are established by the state constitution, paid for with taxpayers’ dollars, as are the teachers and administrators. They are agents of the state in every sense of the word. And there is something horribly wrong when one of those administrators can hand out birth control pills to a 13 year-old without her parents’ knowledge or consent, and force a 16 year old to confess to underage drinking, or any other violation of the law, totally away from school property at a time when school is not in session, with no recourse to counsel or advice that the student, who is forced by law to be there, has a right to keep his mouth shut.
My lawsuit is proceeding.
Bat One - 08:01pm on 01/10/2008
And there is something horribly wrong when one of those administrators can hand out birth control pills to a 13 year-old without her parents’ knowledge or consent, and force a 16 year old to confess to underage drinking, or any other violation of the law, totally away from school property at a time when school is not in session, with no recourse to counsel or advice that the student, who is forced by law to be there, has a right to keep his mouth shut.
We 100% agree about that part. Look, the simple fact is that as a parent, you consent to this sort of thing when you sign little junior up for the public school monstrosity. This is at heart, my major beef with our education system in general. And funny, but Huckabee doesn’t support school choice or school vouchers that give parents control over this sort of thing.
I am personally planning on homeschooling my kids for high school, using online courses from the local community colleges, thereby getting them college credit, having an established curriculum, getting the out of the public school monopoly, and providing a solid footing for my kids. Beauty is that homeschooled kids can participate in athletics, attend dances, and participate in most events at the schools. One of the wonderful thing our legislatures have done. At least that is my plan.
But if your kids participate at all or play sports, they are subject to the rules. But I’ll be damned if I am gonna allow my kid to be interrogated by some Nazi school principal without me being there or without a lawyer. We need a parents bill of rights that prevents them from interrogating, but if you sign the code of conduct for athletics as these parents did, they are kinda screwed.
Justin B. - 08:01pm on 01/10/2008
BTW, you know the cost of online courses at the local community college is around $200 per 3 credit class or around $1000 a semester, a fraction of the cost of a private school. Add in books and it is close to $1500. Put that in perspective--that is money I am going to have to spend anyway later one. So you eliminate 4 years of shit and as long as your kids will do the work, you can better prepare them for college. Plus they can still play sports.
Why is the NEA so afraid again? Oh, that is right. Because they are a fucking monopoly of Nazis and parents expect their kids to learn, not be “indoctrinated” and brain washed.
Justin B. - 08:01pm on 01/10/2008
Haha! The kids were drinking soda? Hahaha! They were engaged in the latest youth-craze which has swept across the country. Called BEER PONG, it requires plastic cups usually red. Kids DO NOT drink soda out of cups… they drink it straight out of the can. Kids regard FACEBOOK and MYSPACE as their private, adult-proof domain where they can post anything ! In my view if they post it, they deal with the consequences! Hats off to school officials for being saavy on this one.
Plastic cups come in whatever color they come in. The Catholic Newman center at UMSL sometimes uses red cups at their events (and we’re not playing beer pong). The color of cups, or PRESENCE of cups is not enough to prove anything.
The ruling is assinine. Pure and simple.
likwidshoe… as in, learn to take both the ups and downs that life offers without whining and crying, no fair.
The fact that life isn’t fair doesn’t mean one can’t take remedies when they are unjustly accused. There’s not a single person on this board who would accept being fired because they’d been seen drinking out of a red plastic cup. And this “life isn’t fair” kick is pure tripe.
Kenny - 02:01am on 01/11/2008
But if your kids participate at all or play sports, they are subject to the rules. But I’ll be damned if I am gonna allow my kid to be interrogated by some Nazi school principal without me being there or without a lawyer. We need a parents bill of rights that prevents them from interrogating, but if you sign the code of conduct for athletics as these parents did, they are kinda screwed.
Justin, what complete nonsense. On one hand you argue against the action (if it was your kids), but argue against those involved. Pick a stand. If you sign a paper that says you can’t drink liquor, then the other signatory (the school) must PROVE you drank liquor. “I say him drinking out of a plastic cup” isn’t good enough. EVERY event I attended in high school included plastic cups.
The school can’t probe it...they have no case...they MUST let the kids back on.
Kenny - 02:01am on 01/11/2008
My argument is this--
The parents signed a code of conduct that clearly allows the school to suspend the kids from athletic activities. I have no problem with that because it was a voluntary agreement between the three parties--the parents, the student, and the school.
The second part is the burden of proof. In this case, I believe that the school has met the burden of proof necessary to suspend the kids from athletic activities, a burden that is far lower than that necessary for any kind of criminal conviction. The students posted incriminating photos and it is assumed that at least one of them caved and admitted that kids were drinking. I also assume that most if not all of the kids admitted as such when confronted with a “we will suspend you the whole year” threat in a good cop bad cop situation with the coaches and administrators present. Perhaps even some parents encouraged their kids to fess up to what they were doing. At that point, the suspensions are more than justified.
But the bigger picture goes beyond just this one incident. We have empowered our schools to not only maintain discipline in the classroom and in extracurriculars, but have given them both interrogating authority and judicial authority. In essence, a principal is the cop, da, and judge all rolled into one. The can pressure confessions and often times this is done without informing the student of possible punishments and even more likely without the presence of a parent. Now, with the overzealous prosecution by criminal authorities, confessions given to school administrators are given directly to cops and the school administrator is essentially a government representative that can coerce confessions out of kids that cops obviously cannot. That is what I have a problem with.
So it puts us in a quandry. Do I teach my kids not to lie and to take responsibility for their actions? Do I teach them to respect authority and work honestly with their principal and teachers? Or do I rightly teach them to view principals and cops with a level of distrust and refuse to communicate with them unless I am there to ensure my kids are adequately prepared to give testimony?As I said, a parents bill of rights that states that no questioning can be conducted without a parent present when any offense could have criminal or legal ramifications.
It is a troubling area for parents that leaves many of us hating the NEA and hating public schools in general because they subject us to government intrusion that would not otherwise be tolerated.
Does that make sense?
Justin B. - 10:01am on 01/11/2008
I guess the other argument that you could make isn’t whether the kids agreed to the code of conduct or whether the burden of proof was met, but whether these suspensions from athletics were fitting with the crime.
I am mixed on that. It appears that this was one singular offense and the standard suspension is two games. The administrators stretched that to one offense for each drink or picture or some such nonsense and this was probably a tactic used to coerce a confession or threaten other students. I do take issue with that.
I am not so sure after the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” case. In that case the student was suspended from school for two weeks. Yet the SCOTUS held that his activities off campus that posed a disruption to operation of the school during a student activity justified the suspension.
I am having a tough time not equating a zero tolerance drug law regarding marijuana with alcohol laws prohibiting student use on campus (and/or off). This approaches some kind of grey area where one must differentiate between a 17 year old drinking alcohol or a 17 year old smoking a fatty boom batty blunt.
I think you are wrong about school officials being able to question a student about their activities requiring them reading them their Miranda rights. But I also believe this is a major problem that comes up often--School officials say things like “if you tell me XXX, then we might be able to reduce your suspension, etc.” and coerce students into incriminating themselves.
But again, no formal criminal charges were brought. These students should be thankful that they aren’t being criminally charged.
So, the school owns these children. Ain’t that special!
Justin,
I know whereof I speak because I’ve gone through it. School officials used the in loco parentis doctrine as rationale for their interrogations, with no Miranda warnings of any kind, then turned their findings over to the police and the District Attorney for eventual prosecution. All for an incident which, like the one above, that happened completely off school grounds.
Public schools, government schools, are established by the state constitution, paid for with taxpayers’ dollars, as are the teachers and administrators. They are agents of the state in every sense of the word. And there is something horribly wrong when one of those administrators can hand out birth control pills to a 13 year-old without her parents’ knowledge or consent, and force a 16 year old to confess to underage drinking, or any other violation of the law, totally away from school property at a time when school is not in session, with no recourse to counsel or advice that the student, who is forced by law to be there, has a right to keep his mouth shut.
My lawsuit is proceeding.
We 100% agree about that part. Look, the simple fact is that as a parent, you consent to this sort of thing when you sign little junior up for the public school monstrosity. This is at heart, my major beef with our education system in general. And funny, but Huckabee doesn’t support school choice or school vouchers that give parents control over this sort of thing.
I am personally planning on homeschooling my kids for high school, using online courses from the local community colleges, thereby getting them college credit, having an established curriculum, getting the out of the public school monopoly, and providing a solid footing for my kids. Beauty is that homeschooled kids can participate in athletics, attend dances, and participate in most events at the schools. One of the wonderful thing our legislatures have done. At least that is my plan.
But if your kids participate at all or play sports, they are subject to the rules. But I’ll be damned if I am gonna allow my kid to be interrogated by some Nazi school principal without me being there or without a lawyer. We need a parents bill of rights that prevents them from interrogating, but if you sign the code of conduct for athletics as these parents did, they are kinda screwed.
BTW, you know the cost of online courses at the local community college is around $200 per 3 credit class or around $1000 a semester, a fraction of the cost of a private school. Add in books and it is close to $1500. Put that in perspective--that is money I am going to have to spend anyway later one. So you eliminate 4 years of shit and as long as your kids will do the work, you can better prepare them for college. Plus they can still play sports.
Why is the NEA so afraid again? Oh, that is right. Because they are a fucking monopoly of Nazis and parents expect their kids to learn, not be “indoctrinated” and brain washed.
Plastic cups come in whatever color they come in. The Catholic Newman center at UMSL sometimes uses red cups at their events (and we’re not playing beer pong). The color of cups, or PRESENCE of cups is not enough to prove anything.
The ruling is assinine. Pure and simple.
The fact that life isn’t fair doesn’t mean one can’t take remedies when they are unjustly accused. There’s not a single person on this board who would accept being fired because they’d been seen drinking out of a red plastic cup. And this “life isn’t fair” kick is pure tripe.
Justin, what complete nonsense. On one hand you argue against the action (if it was your kids), but argue against those involved. Pick a stand. If you sign a paper that says you can’t drink liquor, then the other signatory (the school) must PROVE you drank liquor. “I say him drinking out of a plastic cup” isn’t good enough. EVERY event I attended in high school included plastic cups.
The school can’t probe it...they have no case...they MUST let the kids back on.
My argument is this--
The parents signed a code of conduct that clearly allows the school to suspend the kids from athletic activities. I have no problem with that because it was a voluntary agreement between the three parties--the parents, the student, and the school.
The second part is the burden of proof. In this case, I believe that the school has met the burden of proof necessary to suspend the kids from athletic activities, a burden that is far lower than that necessary for any kind of criminal conviction. The students posted incriminating photos and it is assumed that at least one of them caved and admitted that kids were drinking. I also assume that most if not all of the kids admitted as such when confronted with a “we will suspend you the whole year” threat in a good cop bad cop situation with the coaches and administrators present. Perhaps even some parents encouraged their kids to fess up to what they were doing. At that point, the suspensions are more than justified.
But the bigger picture goes beyond just this one incident. We have empowered our schools to not only maintain discipline in the classroom and in extracurriculars, but have given them both interrogating authority and judicial authority. In essence, a principal is the cop, da, and judge all rolled into one. The can pressure confessions and often times this is done without informing the student of possible punishments and even more likely without the presence of a parent. Now, with the overzealous prosecution by criminal authorities, confessions given to school administrators are given directly to cops and the school administrator is essentially a government representative that can coerce confessions out of kids that cops obviously cannot. That is what I have a problem with.
So it puts us in a quandry. Do I teach my kids not to lie and to take responsibility for their actions? Do I teach them to respect authority and work honestly with their principal and teachers? Or do I rightly teach them to view principals and cops with a level of distrust and refuse to communicate with them unless I am there to ensure my kids are adequately prepared to give testimony?As I said, a parents bill of rights that states that no questioning can be conducted without a parent present when any offense could have criminal or legal ramifications.
It is a troubling area for parents that leaves many of us hating the NEA and hating public schools in general because they subject us to government intrusion that would not otherwise be tolerated.
Does that make sense?
I guess the other argument that you could make isn’t whether the kids agreed to the code of conduct or whether the burden of proof was met, but whether these suspensions from athletics were fitting with the crime.
I am mixed on that. It appears that this was one singular offense and the standard suspension is two games. The administrators stretched that to one offense for each drink or picture or some such nonsense and this was probably a tactic used to coerce a confession or threaten other students. I do take issue with that.