...They can take our underwear, but they can never take our FREEDOM!
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-479.pdf
"Arizona school officials violated the constitutional rights of a 13-year-old girl when they strip-searched her on the suspicion she might be hiding ibuprofen in her underwear, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday. The decision put school districts on notice that such searches are "categorically distinct'' from other efforts to combat illegal drugs."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/06/26/strip_search_of_student_illegal_high_court_rules/
Quote from: IOZConsider the logic of it. On the one hand, schoolchildren are so extremely vulnerable, so easily damaged, so fragile, suggestible, damageable, flimsy, and corruptible that we cannot even allow them to be exposed to aspirin or cough drops. On the other, hauling a child in front of adults, compelling her to strip, and forcing her to behave in a thoroughly degrading manner is no big deal, mere embarrassment; she'll get over it; kids are resilient. Has there ever been any society, ever, in the history of the world, that has devoted so much of its genius to the production of such thoroughly incomprehensible and inconsistent standards, such nonsensical cultural attitudes? It's like our one true native art.
I love IOZ. Best commentary on the web.
Wow, that was awesome. What's the url?
whoisioz.blogspot.com
For an anarchist/minarchist, he's pretty funny. Also some of his recipes are very nice indeed.
Oh, he also said this:
QuoteQuote"This is where you have to look at the totality of the circumstances in the case," says Matthew Wright, lawyer for the school district.
When asked whether such an extensive search made sense for a pill that is the equivalent of two Advil, Wright says school officials cannot have known these were the only pills.
"With hindsight and with calm reflection, we can look back and say, 'OK, what kind of danger really was there on campus?'" Wright says. "But when you're on the ground making on-the-spot decisions, you don't have that luxury. School administrators are not pharmacologically trained in being able to assess the relative dangers any one drug might present, but what they are charged with is to make sure that students are kept safe from such threats of danger."
-Morning Edition on NPR
I like this line of argument and plan to use it at work. "Well, boss, with hindsight and calm reflection I should not have have pulled the fire alarm and started throwing elderly trustees out the window, but I was on the ground making on-the-spot decisions, and I didn't have that luxury."
I am not on principle opposed to the idea that the exigencies of certain circumstances dictate that we respond without long reflection. Situational ethics and all that. From time to time, all of us are called to act within the constraints of a too short time frame, or on imperfect or incomplete information. And all of us act all the time without the benefit of hindsight, which is a tautology, but a useful one.
As an attorney arguing that exigent circumstances forced more precipitous action than was desirable in retrospect, however, it is best not to craft an argument that makes your clients sound like monstrous, ignorant dumbasses. Arguing that school officials, for instance, have an unfettered right to search any student's body and person at any time and with any degree of invasiveness because they have no fucking idea what it is they're looking for nor reason to believe that the student in question possesses this ineffable quantity seems to me like a loser, even given your Scalias and such.
Shouldn't we be astonished at just how thoroughly the language of safety, security, and control have overtaken the language of teaching and instruction in the mouths of pedagogues? Schools are drug-free zones, where students are protected from violence, where bullying is not tolerated, one strike and you're out, etc. etc. Whatever happened to the three Rs?
UPDATE: Aaaaaand nevermind. Drugsrbad. Thanks.
Oh, and this:
QuoteYo, someone should explain to the WaPo that senior school officials as senior administrators have a fiduciary relationship to their organizations that makes them legally responsible and liable when their shit is breakin' the law, breakin' the law, especially when they themselves directed the school to do so.
Also, just for shits, how fucking tawdry and prurient is it to take to the nation's second major editorial page to argue for the dire necessity of stripping thirteen-year-old girls?
Fucked.
What did they hope to prevent or protect the other children from? Getting rid of a headache and minor liver damage?
Quote from: Cain on June 26, 2009, 01:09:18 PM
whoisioz.blogspot.com
For an anarchist/minarchist, he's pretty funny. Also some of his recipes are very nice indeed.
Oh, he also said this:
QuoteQuote"This is where you have to look at the totality of the circumstances in the case," says Matthew Wright, lawyer for the school district.
When asked whether such an extensive search made sense for a pill that is the equivalent of two Advil, Wright says school officials cannot have known these were the only pills.
"With hindsight and with calm reflection, we can look back and say, 'OK, what kind of danger really was there on campus?'" Wright says. "But when you're on the ground making on-the-spot decisions, you don't have that luxury. School administrators are not pharmacologically trained in being able to assess the relative dangers any one drug might present, but what they are charged with is to make sure that students are kept safe from such threats of danger."
-Morning Edition on NPR
I like this line of argument and plan to use it at work. "Well, boss, with hindsight and calm reflection I should not have have pulled the fire alarm and started throwing elderly trustees out the window, but I was on the ground making on-the-spot decisions, and I didn't have that luxury."
I am not on principle opposed to the idea that the exigencies of certain circumstances dictate that we respond without long reflection. Situational ethics and all that. From time to time, all of us are called to act within the constraints of a too short time frame, or on imperfect or incomplete information. And all of us act all the time without the benefit of hindsight, which is a tautology, but a useful one.
As an attorney arguing that exigent circumstances forced more precipitous action than was desirable in retrospect, however, it is best not to craft an argument that makes your clients sound like monstrous, ignorant dumbasses. Arguing that school officials, for instance, have an unfettered right to search any student's body and person at any time and with any degree of invasiveness because they have no fucking idea what it is they're looking for nor reason to believe that the student in question possesses this ineffable quantity seems to me like a loser, even given your Scalias and such.
Shouldn't we be astonished at just how thoroughly the language of safety, security, and control have overtaken the language of teaching and instruction in the mouths of pedagogues? Schools are drug-free zones, where students are protected from violence, where bullying is not tolerated, one strike and you're out, etc. etc. Whatever happened to the three Rs?
UPDATE: Aaaaaand nevermind. Drugsrbad. Thanks.
Oh, and this:
QuoteYo, someone should explain to the WaPo that senior school officials as senior administrators have a fiduciary relationship to their organizations that makes them legally responsible and liable when their shit is breakin' the law, breakin' the law, especially when they themselves directed the school to do so.
Also, just for shits, how fucking tawdry and prurient is it to take to the nation's second major editorial page to argue for the dire necessity of stripping thirteen-year-old girls?
[satyrical ] If they were going to employ such logic with precedent set by the Bush admininstration, they should have sent the Army into her underwear. [/satyrical]
God damn! I would pull my kid out of that school in a heartbeat and encourage all the other parents to do the same.
We had a similar fiasco at my old elementary school a few years ago. The same woman was still the principal as when I went there many years ago. Needless to say, my views on disciplinary techniques differed from hers at the time.
Anyway, local courts ruled that her actions were legal and justified, and my childhood perceptions of "The Systemtm" were vindicated.
Strip-searches of children are fucking unreal. I'm glad the court ruled it unconstitutional.
And, I mean, fucking IBUPROFEN. I can't believe a girl can't even carry a packet of Midol around anymore. Schools need to stop "protecting" kids and get back to teaching them.
Honestly it sounds like bullying. Also wanting to see a 13 yr old naked.
They sound like sick fucks.
If it were my daughter...
Quote from: Nigel on June 26, 2009, 03:51:27 PM
Strip-searches of children are fucking unreal. I'm glad the court ruled it unconstitutional.
And, I mean, fucking IBUPROFEN. I can't believe a girl can't even carry a packet of Midol around anymore. Schools need to stop "protecting" kids and get back to teaching them.
I get the sense there's some unrealistic pressure on the schools to supply this level of "safety". You can't allow someone any measure control over their behavior and at the same time force that behavior to be safe. It is possible that people will do stupid things and get hurt. They may hurt someone else. Even prisons can't totally control and gaurantee that their inmates will be totally safe and perectly behaved, and enforcing that same kind of control on a school is insane.
Stupid behavior is the one thing I'd define as an "unalienable right". If you're lucky and smart, you get to learn from it, but you can't prevent it from happening.
Of course, this also means that 14-year-old girls will now be free to hide drugs in their panties.
Quote from: LMNO on June 26, 2009, 04:56:16 PM
Of course, this also means that 14-year-old girls will now be free to hide drugs in their panties.
If we could package these 14 y/o girl's panty drugs and ship them to Japan we'd make millions!
Quote from: Nigel on June 26, 2009, 03:51:27 PM
Strip-searches of children are fucking unreal. I'm glad the court ruled it unconstitutional.
And, I mean, fucking IBUPROFEN. I can't believe a girl can't even carry a packet of Midol around anymore. Schools need to stop "protecting" kids and get back to teaching them.
They're protecting themselves. From lawsuits.
That's what the zero tolerance shit is all about.
And how's that working for you, administrators? :lulz:
right?
:lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 26, 2009, 10:42:05 PM
Quote from: Nigel on June 26, 2009, 03:51:27 PM
Strip-searches of children are fucking unreal. I'm glad the court ruled it unconstitutional.
And, I mean, fucking IBUPROFEN. I can't believe a girl can't even carry a packet of Midol around anymore. Schools need to stop "protecting" kids and get back to teaching them.
They're protecting themselves. From lawsuits.
That's what the zero tolerance shit is all about.
And how's that working for you, administrators? :lulz:
Which makes absolutely zero sense. To start with, zero tolerance rules aren't allowed if a school accepts federal money. (Knowing this is an easy way out of an expulsion in my experience).
Quote from: Requia on June 28, 2009, 04:13:11 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 26, 2009, 10:42:05 PM
Quote from: Nigel on June 26, 2009, 03:51:27 PM
Strip-searches of children are fucking unreal. I'm glad the court ruled it unconstitutional.
And, I mean, fucking IBUPROFEN. I can't believe a girl can't even carry a packet of Midol around anymore. Schools need to stop "protecting" kids and get back to teaching them.
They're protecting themselves. From lawsuits.
That's what the zero tolerance shit is all about.
And how's that working for you, administrators? :lulz:
Which makes absolutely zero sense. To start with, zero tolerance rules aren't allowed if a school accepts federal money. (Knowing this is an easy way out of an expulsion in my experience).
What is the connection between federal monies and lawsuits? I don't get it.
Quote from: Requia on June 28, 2009, 04:13:11 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 26, 2009, 10:42:05 PM
Quote from: Nigel on June 26, 2009, 03:51:27 PM
Strip-searches of children are fucking unreal. I'm glad the court ruled it unconstitutional.
And, I mean, fucking IBUPROFEN. I can't believe a girl can't even carry a packet of Midol around anymore. Schools need to stop "protecting" kids and get back to teaching them.
They're protecting themselves. From lawsuits.
That's what the zero tolerance shit is all about.
And how's that working for you, administrators? :lulz:
Which makes absolutely zero sense. To start with, zero tolerance rules aren't allowed if a school accepts federal money. (Knowing this is an easy way out of an expulsion in my experience).
Really? How recently was that implemented?
GA,
got into serious shit with zero-tolerance in the sixth grade at a public school.
QuoteWhat is the connection between federal monies and lawsuits? I don't get it.
With lawsuits? none, but legal liability and financial damages plenty.
QuoteReally? How recently was that implemented?
Not sure, this came up oh... 8 years ago in Utah when they tried to institute statewide zero tolerance rules and the teachers union *freaked* because of the potential loss of funding. So at least that long.
Quote from: Requia on June 28, 2009, 09:45:43 AM
QuoteWhat is the connection between federal monies and lawsuits? I don't get it.
With lawsuits? none, but legal liability and financial damages plenty.
That's kind of a disconnect from Roger's statement, though.
Also, you have the zero-tolerance/federal funding thing backward. All 50 states adopted zero-tolerance policies in 1994 in order to safeguard their federal funding.
Quote from: Requia on June 28, 2009, 04:13:11 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 26, 2009, 10:42:05 PM
Quote from: Nigel on June 26, 2009, 03:51:27 PM
Strip-searches of children are fucking unreal. I'm glad the court ruled it unconstitutional.
And, I mean, fucking IBUPROFEN. I can't believe a girl can't even carry a packet of Midol around anymore. Schools need to stop "protecting" kids and get back to teaching them.
They're protecting themselves. From lawsuits.
That's what the zero tolerance shit is all about.
And how's that working for you, administrators? :lulz:
Which makes absolutely zero sense. To start with, zero tolerance rules aren't allowed if a school accepts federal money. (Knowing this is an easy way out of an expulsion in my experience).
What the fuck are you talking about? I'm talking liability, and you're talking federal funding.
And link to zero tolerance rules canceling title I funding?
"absolutely zero sense". Fuck. Sober up and try again.