Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Students Banned from Blogging

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the it's-for-your-own-protection dept.

wayward writes "Students at Pope John XIII, a Catholic high school, were told to take down their blogs from sites like Xanga and MySpace or face suspension. Rev. Kieran McHugh, the school's principal, said that he was trying to protect students from online predators. Not too surprisingly, free speech advocates got more than a little concerned.

28 of 876 comments (clear)

  1. Constitutional protections.... by BWJones · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Well, there is this thing call anonymity.... Oh, don't forget free speech. Last time I checked, there is no clause in the Constitution saying anything about how old you have to be to qualify for the First Amendment. By the way, if you are in the DC area, you owe it to yourself to stop by the National Archives and see the Constitution. It had a surprisingly profound impact on this jaded science geek.

    Back on topic: On legal grounds, because the school is a religious school, they can make certain requirements. For instance, I once dated a girl that was recruited from Norway to be on the BYU ski team. She accepted because of the scholarship even though she was not part of the "moral majority" there. Here is the deal though... they made her sign an "agreement" that she would not consume coffee or alcohol even while not on school grounds. She abided by that contract, and honored it. But when her parents came into town, she went to dinner with her family. She did not have any wine at dinner, while her parents did. Two days later, she was called into the Presidents office because someone had reported (ratted) her for being with people who were consuming alcohol. The deal is though, because this was a religious school, there are no personal rights issues at stake and she had no recourse. Her personal choice was to leave BYU and her scholarship behind because she was so offended.

    Of course this is one of the major problems associated with federal funding of religious programs for charity or education. These charities can discriminate and there are no federal protections for these folks who are discriminated against even though the source of the funds are federal in nature. Shockingly, there have been discrimination cases based upon religion, race or appearance that are being upheld because "private" churches or schools can make any requirements on their "clubs" they want. Historically, the protection has been that any organization that receives federal funding cannot discriminate, but the new rules blow this away.

    Don't get me wrong, I consider myself religious and was raised Catholic, but large organized religions have proven difficult for me to participate in.

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    1. Re:Constitutional protections.... by onetwentyone · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I remember when I took a law class my first year in college, the professor spent a good three lectures going over what rights you have in college versus what you have available to you in high school and below. IIRC until you leave the primary/secondary grades, you are not entitled to free speech. This does not mean you can't express yourself, only that you are not of sound mind/age to be granted legal protection for your consitutional rights.

      The private school I attended before college actually had written in its charter that no student should be restricted from expressing themselves in any manner outside of school. They did place restrictions on what you could do on the campus as well as what you could do with the school's computers.

      IMHO, it really comes down to how much was signed away when the parents' enrolled their children in the school to begin.

    2. Re:Constitutional protections.... by uncqual · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Don't forget the effect of the Teacher's Union(s) which (at least in California) have great power and are more interested in their members' benefits than the quality of education they provide. Hopefully some of this will soon change in California at least.

      Ironically, and as much as I hate to admit it (I'm mostly a libertarian), the movement of more Federal control in education finally pushed aside the petty objections to uniform testing of students. The teacher's unions usually objected to any objective measure of student achievement because (correctly) they realized that this would also help objective measure of teacher ability. Testing isn't the perfect solution, but it's much better than NO objective accountability.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    3. Re:Constitutional protections.... by jacksonj04 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But if a non-state school has a "no blogs" rule they are within their rights to exclude you if you have a blog. Likewise with haircuts - some (non-state) schools have short haircut policies. Don't like it, go somewhere else.

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
    4. Re:Constitutional protections.... by bhiestand · · Score: 1, Interesting
      I respect your knowledge of the issue and corresponding laws, but I heartily disagree with your interpreation of them. Hopefully legalese will be able to evolve to a point where such arguments are impossible given the language laws are written in. Now on with the arguing.

      The Constitution doesn't say that I can use a web browser, does that mean I need to wait for an amendment before I read /. ? I'm still having trouble believing you were modded +2, Insightful.

      No, because the "right to use any software you choose (subject to all applicable laws)" is already outlined in Amendment #9!
      "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." I may have misworded it, but I hope you understand that I did not mean it in this ridiculous way. I'm just too tired to form perfect sentences right now, and a little out of it from being sick.

      But, you DO have that right, and all the others that aren't specifically taken away from you. The ones that you're not allowed to have are, generally, those which are seen to interfere with the rights of others. You can't take their property, you can't restrict their free speech, you can't take their right to life*. I know you already touched on the 13th amendment, but you can't own slaves. Is this because it's a LOCAL law? No, it probably isn't in your area. It's probably not even in your state constitution. But it IS specifically prohibited in the 13th Amendment, so it applies to you. As a citizen of the united states you're subject to all federal laws as well as the state that you're in. You're also subject to the laws of the state you're a resident of. On top of that, you can (upon your return) be held liable for a crime you commit while outside of the United States. This is all courtesy of federal law, which an individual cannot supersede no matter how hard he tries.

      You also left out the 19th, which, in Section I, states "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

      You could've possibly shot me down with the opening of the 1st amendment, stating "Congress shall make no law ...", but I have every intention of fixing that loophole some day. It should be something along the lines of "The Federal Government, nor any subsidiary government or citizen thereof, shall make no law". I think it's pretty clear that the intent was NOT "we're going to leave it to the states to establish a state religion, restrict free speech, and stop people from peaceably assembling."

      Also, please reference my other reply regarding the The New Jersey State Constitution, "Every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right."

      * Possible exception is in abortion cases. That decision is still pending.
      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    5. Re:Constitutional protections.... by dbrutus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, it's like not being let into the theater because you've rented a DVD from Blockbuster.

      Thinking more about it, the suit that would likely have the best result would be in the ecclesial courts as the bishop holding the purse strings for the school would not be amused at anything that smacked of repressing evangelization. If the bishop lets it go through, the nuncio probably wouldn't like it and the Pope would like it even less. They all have email and they're all in one Catholic directory or another.

    6. Re:Constitutional protections.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      However, in the US the freedom of private organizations to discriminate and oppress private individuals is held sacred, on the principle that all private transactions are voluntary. This is perhaps a flame-baiting way to say it, but it is clear that US constitutional rights do not apply to the relations of private individuals. Whatever laws thera are against violence, libel etc. are AFAIK not based on constitutional rights.

      This is different in the European system (as codified in the European Convention on Human Rights, which I know something about), and apparently also in Canada. In this tradition basic rights are held to be inviolable even by private individuals.

      This does not however mean that you can sue someone in the European Court of Human Rights for violating your freedom of speech; the responsibility is on the government to ensure through legislation that private individuals cannot unduly curtail the basic rights of another individual (or corporation). The basic framework thus is "balance of rights" - the freedoms of other must be limited in those aspects where they would lead to violating the rights of others, but these limitations cannot be too strong to violate the rights of the first party.

      So, in short, the European (and Canadian, which I don't know much about) approach to basic rights is completely different. In some ways it can be seen as better, in others as worse -- in Europe our basic rights are not inviolable if someone can successfully argue that the right leads to violations of their rights. This is how we end up with laws banning Nazi paraphernalia, but the same framework ensures that such limitations of freedom of speech cannot be applied at any whim of a government.

    7. Re:Constitutional protections.... by solman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The original point is still quite valid.

      There are many cases when individuals and corporations deny those freedoms.

      In the US we believe that by doing so, we respect the rights of those individuals and in the case of corporations, the rights of the individuals that own the corporation.

      In much of the rest of the world (the text supplied here suggests that Canada may be one of those places) freedom of speech is interpreted as restraining the actions of individuals.

      None of this is to suggest that the rest of the world takes freedom of speech seriously anyway. If I start a business in Quebec and talk to my employees in English, I would forfeit my freedom of speech (and potentially my business). If somebody believes that one race is superior to another race, and openly expresses this belief in Europe, he or she is liable to be arrested. Most of the rest of the world likes the concept of freedom of speech, just as long as it is isn't used to say things that the majority finds repugnant. If Voltaire was alive today, he wold be an American. I pray that in 2050 I can still say that.

    8. Re:Constitutional protections.... by Petey_Alchemist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's the gist of what I emailed to the school today.

      I think a lot of people also have a deep seated misunderstanding of the Constitution's applicability to the present case--at least based on the modded-up posts.

      First off, most of the Constitutional rights that can be applied to public schools--as limited as those are--are thrown right out of the window because this is a private school. Since there is no government compulsion to attend a private high school, it is viewed as a consensual activity. You give up your rights. Moreover, I'm somewhat appalled that no ./ers have made the connection that this Catholic school is obviously not bound by the establishment clause of the First Amendment--so why should it necessarily be bound by the speech clause?

      Don't get me wrong, I'm as against this move by the principal as any other faithful technogeek. Legally speaking, however, I'm not sure there is any reason why the private school *can't* do this. The body of law regarding student speech on the Internet is very unclear. Nothing has mustered certiori, and the assorted state cases have been divided, with some higher courts ruling that a public school official can, in fact, order a student-made website mentioning the school to be taken down (and punish them if they refuse)--and other courts allowing students more latitutde.

      Again, you will not see Tinker nor Hazelwood brought up as binding precedents in this case, because it is a private school.

      A few Cyberspeech related cases will show what I mean in terms of mixed court opinion: Beidler v. North Thurston School District, No. 99-2-00236-6 (Wash.Super.Ct.)(7/18/00) Beussink v. Woodland R-IV School District, 30 F.Supp. 2d 1175 (E.D. Mo. 1998) Coy v. Board of Education of North Canton Schools, 205 F.Supp. 2d 791 (N.D. Ohio 2002) Emmett v. Kent School District No. 415, 92 F.Supp. 2d 1089 (W.D. Wash. 2000) J.S. v. Bethlehem Area School District, 807 A.2d 847 (Pa. 2002) Klein v. Smith, 635 F.Supp. 1440 (D. Me. 1986) Mahaffey v. Aldrich, 236 F.Supp. 2d 779 (E.D. Mich. 2002) O'Brien v. Westlake City Sch. Bd. of Educ., No. 1:98CV647 (E.D. Ohio 1998) Thomas v. Board of Ed. Granville Central School District, 607 F.2d 1043 (2nd Cir. 1979)

      In brief, * A student's website contained his unflattering opinions of the school and the principal. The student was suspended for 10 days. The principal testified that he disciplined the student because he was upset by the contents of the page-not because he believed it would cause any disruption within the school. A federal court overturned the student's suspension (Beussink v. Woodland R-IV, 1998).

      * A student created a website that contained "derogatory, profane, offensive and threatening" comments about a teacher and an administrator. The website featured a drawing of the teacher with her head cut off and solicited $20 donations to help the student pay for a hit man to kill the teacher.

      The student was expelled and appealed the expulsion. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania upheld the districts decision. The court first concluded that the website did not contain "true threat." (If it had, the speech would have received no constitutional protection.) However, the court determined that the student's speech caused a substantial disruption, including emotional and physical injuries to the teacher so severe that she could not continue teaching that year or the next. (J. S. v. Bethlehem Area Sch. Dist., 2002).

      * A student and an unidentified classmate created "Satan's webpage" on an off-campus computer. The site contained a list of people the student wished would die and a section entitled "Satan's Mission for You This Week" that encouraged readers to commit acts of violence and murder.

      After being alerted about the website by the police, the school district suspended him for posting "intimidation and threats" on the Internet. However, a federal district court held that the student's suspension violated his First Amendm

  2. Tax dollars... by valkraider · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I see no problem with this sort of restriction in a private religious school, as long as they don't receive any tax dollars.

    'doh!

    1. Re:Tax dollars... by grimwell · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Also, freedom of speech is not a human right, it's a constitutional right

      How about free will? Doesn't having free will also mean you have freedom of speech, regardless of what any law might or might not say? "Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges!"

      We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their CREATOR, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

      The constitution doesn't grant us the right of free speech, it merely attempts to protect it.

      --
      If the govt becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law, it invites man to become his own law, it invites anarchy
  3. Re:Wait, wait, wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Shouldn't they be finishing up with China first?

    Uh huh.

    The problem's always somewhere OUT THERE isn't it?

    The problem is that China is prohibiting Freedom of Speech, something they've never guaranteed their citizens, not that organizations and institutions in the US are starting to prohibit in a country FOUNDED ON THE PRINCIPLES OF FREEDOM. Right?

    The problem is that evil sexual predators OUT THERE are molesting our kids, not that the vast majority of children are molested and beaten by their own, often religiously zealous and dysfunctional, parents. Right?

    The problem is that evil terrorists, who strangely haven't bothered us since 9/11, threaten our safety and security because they killed 3000 when tens of thousands die of cancer, pollution and ignorance every day. Not to mention the thousands of children who die from malnutrition and parental abuse. Right?

    The problem's always out there. Don't look here. Nothing to see here. LOOK OVER THERE!

  4. Well it could be like my school by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My school tracks down your blog and reads it. If you say anything in it(such as drug or alcohol use) you must take a drug test or are suspended until you do(if you try to fight them in court you only have 21 days because if you are out of school longer then that you fail for the year no matter what your grades are). I dont even know what happens if you talk about attacking the school. Its funny though the only way they figure out your blog because they gave everyone laptops and kids goto them and blog.

    1. Re:Well it could be like my school by gamblor87 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Its interesting to note how different school systems appear to be in Australia from the US. The MSN Spaces of people at my school (nerds and non-nerds alike) post pictures and stories about other students with no issues. We have a laptop programme, so every student has wireless internet access and their own computer. I have never heard of suspension over what is posted though. Has that happened before or is this all a hypothetical?
      We are a fairly protected school in terms of internet and such. We have ContentKeeper running across the network to stop certain sites being shown but did step on a few toes when the Uniting Church, who own the school, discovered that their own website had been blocked under 'Personal Beliefs/Cults'. The problem was very quickly rectified! Also, if laptops are sent in for repair and Kazaa is discovered, you recieve disciplinary action (anything from detention to suspension) and your My Music or Shared Folder(s) are deleted with all the contents inside it. This is even if there is no indication it is being used over the network (hard, considering it is blocked).
      Anyway, I shall be watching this thread closely, its interesting! I think it is taking matters way too far. Blogs are online journals. They are replacing the hard-bound journal of yester-year and record the thoughts of teenagers during their times at school. I think it is a healthy thing for students to be doing, provided that they do not disclose personal information openly. MSN Spaces are good for his, they can be limited to people who you know and who are on your contact list, so it becomes even less of an issue and more of a good thing.

  5. God Forbid by miyako · · Score: 4, Interesting

    God Forbid the student's may run across people who might post ideas that run counter to the church.
    In fact, some of them might not even be *gasp* Christian. The children might be promoted to *Horror* Question the Doctorine of the Church!
    Please Someone Think Of The Children!
    (Not anti-religion, just think that by highschool people should be making up their own minds about it. Shouldn't true belief and a relationship with whatever god(ess)(es) a person chooses to follow or not come from self reflection and soul serching instead of bullying, parental decree, and a lack of exposure to alternate viewpoints?)

    --
    Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
  6. I lived in sparta where the school is located by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I had old buddies who went there.

    Its a strict school. Backwards too I may add.

    They have disciplinary problems in the schools out there and jersey has a high precentage of lawsuits. I wanted to go to Pope John because I was being bullied and harrased daily in elementry school and I was hoping they could protect me.

    --
    http://saveie6.com/
  7. I studied in a catholic school. by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 4, Interesting

    (I won't mention the name to protect the innocent yadda yadda). Here in Mexico the catholic way of life is quite different from the US - while in the US the catholics have (or had - VERY past tense) been kinda isolated from evangelical christians, here in Mexico, catholicism (at least the name) is the norm.

    Catholic schools have been distinguished here for their strict morals, and I do feel grateful for my religion classes, despites their obvious shortcomings (I'd prefer the evangelical way - streamline, not creationist and the like - of teaching religion, i wish the religion classes had been more interactive and fun).

    Anyway.

    The problem with catholic schools is their own fame: Parents saw them as some kind of disciplinary schools. So what happens when you throw in a bunch of troublemakers, hoping a few teachers will put order in their little dirty minds?

    All the bad words, dirty jokes and whatnot, I learned because of the students in the "best" school! And because I was a nerd (and shy) since I was little, I was always the target for bullies. Lesson: Bullying is OK, but getting even at bullies gets you reprimanded, a low grade on "conduct" and in the worst cases, kicked out. Of course, being good and earning the teachers' respect inside school, didn't save you from getting beaten OUTSIDE school on the way home!

    Nice discipline, really (/sarcasm).

    A few years later, this catholic high school became famous for the LACK of discipline by the students. I also feel grateful for having graduated before the decline of this particular school.

    So, yes, the parent poster is right, the students have HELLUVALOT more to be worried about online predators.

  8. silly british ka-nigits by coyote4til7 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Instead of ranting here, I just went and posted a simple question on their website: when were they going to ban students from going to public places since it's oh so much easier for a predator to _follow_ a student. I'm sure there are plenty of other creative suggestions that could be posted at http://www.popejohn.org/

    Oh... I stumbled on the fact there seems to have been two Pope John XXIII (either the journalist left out an X or there are two Pope John High Schools in Sparta NJ). The first was also called an Anti-Pope and (thanks Wikipedia!) and later charged with piracy, murder, rape, sodomy, and incest. Oh the irony, the irony!

    --

    the clock on the wall says 4 til 7
  9. Wait by max+born · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If Rev. Kieran McHugh is prohibiting students from posting online blogs to protect them from predators then the reason every other school is not doing the same is because either a) there's no problem with students posting blogs or b) he's wiser than all the other principals.

    If it's really about protecting students I think he'd want educate them about the values of anonymity and the dangers of giving personal information when using the Internet.

  10. Not surprised by saskboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Blogging is known to be potentially dangerous. In fact I have no doubt that no fewer than 2 sexual beings have looked at my blog in the past hour. And we all know that sex is bad, so sexual beings must be bad too.

    But seriously, kids should not be blogging their thoughts in public anyway. It's different if they do it as a kind of job, but otherwise their blogs are just insipid surveys and risk taking opinions that people outside of their trusted social circles should not be entitled to read. Children don't know any better, and can't deal with the consequences when things go awry. They can't even sue someone for libel, or defend themselves directly in a libel suit.

    --
    Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
  11. Free access vs safe lifes by VincenzoRomano · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The point here should not be free speech. The constitution (with some minor exceptions) will grant us that.
    Would you feel safe if anyone could chat with your younger sons?
    Having a blog can expose your identity and your internet presence to anyone.
    Younger people (but not only them) can be easily nobbled by older and more experienced people. You can read about the results in everyday newspaper.
    Shutting down their blogs may not be the right move. Not at all actually. But something is to be done definitely.
    Instead of talking about religion parties being more or less stupid, it could be great is someone of us could come out with some better idea to protect our sons!

    --
    Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
    For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
  12. freedom and age by delirium+of+disorder · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Before I get into a rant, I'd like to say: What's the big deal about teens and sex anyways? In my experience, young people rather enjoy it and don't need to be protected from any predators any more then anyone else does (anyone who forces non-consensual physical activity on another, regardless of the age of the victim or the attacker, is a criminal and should be treated as such). Any consensual physical activity is a right (regardless of the age of the participants). I think adults (especially Catholic priests) are sexually frustrated and afraid that they are attracted to teens. This attraction is just a biochemical response that normal people generally have to physically fit members of the opposite gender (and sometime the same) who are old enough to be fertile. Because they are repressed and for stupid cultural reasons they want to repress the rest of us, they hide their own desires by over reacting and trying to imagine that young people are not sexual. They censor both because of personal embarrassment and because of the sense of power they get by manipulating others.

    How can we label people "free" and give them the rights free-thinking people deserve if we allow them to grow up totally ensconced in conservative ideology?

    I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. --attributed to Thomas Jefferson

    But...teaching without both free access to different points of view, and the freedom to express your own point of view, is not real education, it is only indoctrination. If children aren't given the opportunity to receive all kinds of knowledge, they accept uncritically whatever traditional "values" their parents believe in simply because their parents are close to them. When parents are given total control of where their children can spend their time, the child's intellectual development is totally at the mercy of the parent. Adults can, if they make enough of an effort, completely shape a child's world. And yet, If we were to emancipate children from the grip of their parents, most of us would immediately force them into some other state institution (public schools, most likely) which would be a violation of both the liberty of the student, and the freedom of the parent to "own" their child.

    Despite legal adulthood being set at 18, the age in which we are given full human rights is for the most part not well agreed upon in America. For example, various states in the US have different and conflicting age of consent laws that allow for sexual freedom anywhere form age 14 to 18. Many young teens (junior high or middle school age) have detailed enough knowledge and a strong enough sense of responsibility that I would trust them to vote or drive cars. There are many legal adults age 18 and up that don't deserve these privileges. Age is an unfair and inconsistent measure of whether one deserves human rights or social privileges. Also, please note that when I refer to children in this post, I mean any human under that age of 18, a large portion of which are more knowledgeable then an average adult especially regarding information technology. I am not just talking about little kids.

    Children in America really are an oppressed group; parents here can use coercion to force feed their kids whatever sick ideals they stand for. The United States and Somalia are the only two nations to have not ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Nearly American seams to end up having "Faith" (false conviction in unjustified propositions) in the same God that there parents did. Funny how our respect for parents "rights" to control their kids leads to the propagation of violent and idiotic ideas like Christian fundamentalism and racis

    --
    ------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
  13. Re:believe me... by BrookHarty · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Want to convince a kid that religion is bullshit, and make an atheist of him? Send him to Catholic school.

    That reminds me of a gal on Bill Maher said. "All those people you interrogated in Iraq, if any of them are innocent, they ARE terrorists now"

    Nothing makes you hate more than being persecuted..

  14. another pov by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Instead of having parents force their kids to take down their blogs, the advice should be exactly the opposite. If parents read these blogs (not their own kids, but generally) they just might gain some non-BS insight about how kids in an age group like their own really think, act and express themselves in a setting that's unfiltered and honest.

    I think that's a tremendous benefit that far outweighs chasing non-existent bogeymen around the internet. Practical advice about posting obviously identifiable info is good, but saying let's just take all the blogs down is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, no pun intended. And from what I've seen of teen-age blogs on the net, all use an alias and don't post overtly personal info such as home address, etc.

    I don't suspect school administrators of having an ulterior motive here, or are attempting to regulate/eliminate free-speech, but I do suspect that they haven't given this as much thought as they should have.

  15. Re:No age limit? by mpe · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Children aren't free to do whatever they want. They're more or less controlled by their guardian. Do you think the founding fathers passed the bill of rights with children in mind?

    The criteria of "child" has varied over time. Thus maybe the question should be along the lines of "Would current High School students be considered children according to the standards of the late 18th century?"

  16. Re:But what of the TEACHERS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Of course they have no problem in posting the tennis team :) http://athletics.popejohn.org/girlstennis/Rosters/ 2005_varsity_roster.htm

  17. Is it a bank? No it's a Catholic High School by alanw · · Score: 2, Interesting
    http://www.catholicism.org/school.html

    http://www.catholicism.org/ibank.barclays.co.uk/ol b/p/LoginMember.do/index.htm

  18. Re:believe me... by databyss · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Count me on that list too, and I enjoyed my catholic school.

    The teachers and the people were good there.

    Nothing makes an intelligent person more critical of religion than actually learning about a religion.

    --
    Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!