Slashdot Mirror
Strip-Search Case Tests Limits of 4th Amendment
langelgjm writes "The US Supreme Court has agreed to review a case involving the strip-searching of a 13 year-old girl who was accused of possessing prescription-strength ibuprofen on school grounds, in violation of the school's zero-tolerance drug policy. The case has gained national attention because of the defining role it will play in determining which, if any, parts of the Constitution apply on school grounds. In Morse v. Frederick, the Supreme Court has already upheld the right of school administrators to restrict students' free speech at school-sponsored events that take place off school property. The school described the strip-search as 'not excessively intrusive in light of [the student's] age and sex and the nature of her suspected infraction.' The Supreme Court's last decision about searches on school property dealt only with searching a student's purse. Incidentally, the girl was found not to be in possession of any drugs, illegal or otherwise."
I'm really hoping to see a large bitch-slap style ruling against the school district. This whole thing is just shameful.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
This case reminds me of the time a good friend's daughter got suspended from high school for a week. She had a chain on her wallet, which was deemed a weapon. They were actually trying to expel her for a violation of their "zero tolerance" policies, but failed. Unbelievable.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
As soon a s the SC gives the schools the go ahead to humiliate these kids you will start seeing kindergartners being treated this way. Take your kids out and home school while you still have the option.
The Navy Motto "IF it ain't broke Fix It" "A day is wasted if you don't learn something new"
Huh? The U.S. Constitution applies on public school grounds, because the school is part of the state, and the teachers and staff are agents of the state. In particular, the courts have applied the First Amendment via the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment for some time now.
Is a teenager having a fucking ibuprofen such a monstrous and immediate security threat that we need to strip search her? Or was somebody just a little too eager to strip search a 13 year old? Hmm?
I wonder if the court would have upheld the 13-year old's right to strenously kick school officials in the balls for forcibly removing her clothing?
It seems to me that, since she *wasn't* found to be in possession of any drugs at all, she's in a good position to make somebody's life really, really uncomfortable for a while.
[b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
This is the kind of thing that happens when positions that come with real power over others (school administrators, police, etc) don't pay well enough to attract competent people.
why some families homeschool and believe their kids get a better education.
In Canada, as an adult, these things are completely illegal. I could presume these arbitrary strip searches would be illegal for adults in the USA as well. But when it comes to think-of-the-children conservativism, then hypocrisy is more important than reality. It's not just the fight against drugs and sex for these conservatives, it's a fight against freedom, and it is a fight for an authoritarian society. And don't let the people that are most likely to deny this convince you otherwise. They do get found out every once in a while, and sometimes they even go to jail. In the mean time we shouldn't be letting these people hurt children.
Don't forget, it wasn't just that it was prescription strength OTC medication (she could have taken a handful of "regular" pills for the same effect)
The entire thing was based on the accusations of another student. No one actually saw her with any pills of any kind. A strip search for what amounts to over the counter medication based on the accusations of another student.
If a student had accused the vice principal of the same thing, would they be expected to submit to a strip search?
Zero tolerance policies are the same as "I just don't want to make hard decisions" so instead you make f'ing stupid ones.
> 'not excessively intrusive in light of [the student's] age and sex and the nature of her suspected infraction.'
What does her sex have to do with it? Would it have been more or less intrusive to strip search a boy?
Well I mean you might get off tripping on the reduction to a swelling, or maybe you want to OD and give yourself indigestion..
What the hell was going through these peoples' minds when they deemed a strip-search was necessary to determine if the student had ibuprofen? Did nobody involve think "hey, now, this isn't this somewhat excessive"? She said she didn't have the ibuprofen - since ibuprofen isn't really a threat to the safety of anybody (unless she deliberately overdoses), why are they searching her possessions solely based on the accusation of another student They're treating this as a Fourth Amendment issue, which it is. However, strip-searching a student is wrong and should be considered illegal, regardless of the Fourth Amendment. Doing it because you think she has ibuprofen is just ludicrous.
Wouldn't Inertial compass or pole sensitivity be more accurate?
... so that when they're older, they'll accept this and even more serious breaches of privacy from the government. Because it's to protect the children!
-"Those who fought today will die tommorow."-
That doesn't make sense.
Do school officials get to cherry pick which parts of the Constitution they can violate?
They get to violate a student's free exercise of religion on the grounds that one cannot distinguish between congress making laws and school officials "permitting" references to Christian dieties.
A 13 year old girl taking analgesics to school for menstrual pain is a catagory of crime identical to a drug pusher vending dope and requires "zero tolerance"? Only to those who refuse to think or use common sense, so are brain dead. The more this PC crap takes hold the more it is indistinguishable from Fascism.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
A "strip-search" performed by anyone other than a police officer acting with probable cause is a sexual assault.
People, including teens and children, have the right to defend themselves by any means necessary against such an attack, and should be trained to do so.
After some pervert principal gets his testicles crushed and his eyes gouged by a student he's trying to attack, perhaps we might see an end to this bullshit.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
This is a joke, right?
Right? Please?
"The case has gained national attention because of the defining role it will play in determining which, if any, parts of the Constitution apply on school grounds."
I think its time we have the constitution printed on the bathroom tissues in that school..
So what could excessively intrusive have been in this case? Surgically cutting her open and checking all internal organs?
We might as well just go ahead and do away with it now, so people will stop thinking it still applies or protects them in some way. All it does is cause confusion among those who have the audacity to believe that the bill of rights still matters.
The stories and info posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only fools would take it as fact.
We just need 546, and we could really finally make a statement that needs to be said.
435 representatives
100 congressmen
9 supreme court justices
1 vice president
1 president
There's a reason they don't want us armed, you know.
Maybe our legislators who are always so worried about sexual exploitation of children as an excuse to censor the internet and everything else, might want to look into whether prohibiting the government from forcibly stripping children naked shouldn't be a higher priority.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Before you condemn the living shit out of the school district, try to remember that they have an affirmative responsibility to prevent students from harming themselves while in school. Courts have interpreted that to mean that they must take whatever steps are within their power as soon as they (meaning any employee of the school) becomes aware of a potential threat. Given that they thought they generally have the power to search students for drugs (for instance, had the drugs in question been crack rocks, there would be no question), they could have exposed themselves to massive liabilities had they allowed her to continue to possess the drugs and someone got hurt.
tl;dr version: It's not fair to make the school liable for every little fucking bump and scrape when we also want to impose ever more restrictions on their enforcement.
That all said, it's obvious that ibuprofen is not harmful and they should know the difference. On the other hand, million-dollar liability can cloud the judgment of even the most rational folks, of which very few are employed as school administrators. That liability makes them err on the side of caution, in this case, erring like crazy.
Anyone know? I can understand ibuprofen with codeine, to get the codeine, but ibuprofen?
Is there a high I don't know about?
What I think is of importance here is how our culture treats children.
When does a child become a citizen if not at birth?
And, if children are citizens, what is the excuse of running schools with a level of oppression more appropriate of POW camps? Or making a child do something they are not ready or willing to?
Many parents resort to spanking their child to give them a lesson. When was the last time your boss spanked you or grounded you for not meeting the project deadline?
Our culture promotes treating children as property, making it "OK" for adults to abuse children verbally and psychologically and physically, just recently (in the last 100 or so years) addressing sexual abuse. Physical abuse is still widely accepted and even recommended. The right to privacy, the right to eat when and however much you want, the right to sleep when you are sleepy and use the bathroom when you are ready, are taken away from you when you are a child.
Strip searching a 13-year old girl is just a symptom of tour collective habitual disrespect for children's core dignity.
I suggest you check out this http://is.gd/oMQM and this http://is.gd/lQwS
Incorrect: "I was spanked as a kid and I turned OK."
Correct: "I was spanked as a kid and I grew up to believe that spanking is OK."
Wait. Not excessively intrusive in light of her age and sex? What the hell does THAT mean? Since when does a person's gender or age mean that a strip search is less intrusive? You're making somebody who's dramatically underage, BUT old enough to know what's going on, strip naked. If anything, the fact that she's young and female makes it MORE intrusive (I think the average boy would shrug it off better than a girl would; I might be wrong in that assumption, though). It sounds like whoever said that thinks young girls are worth less than other people, but I hope they're not actually saying that.
Those who anthropomorphize science and/or nature already believe in an intelligent designer.
then the offending school officials would probably have suffered a broken limb or two, immediately before being charged with sexual assault of a minor.
It just goes to show how far these idiot bureaucratic authoritarians will go in the name of their precious "zero tolerance" policies, which have ended up doing a lot more harm than good. They carried it too far with guns (searching and expelling students over squirtguns, for Christ's sake), and they have carried too far with "drugs".
Prescription-strength Ibuprofen, my ass. That would warrant maybe asking the student if it were in her possession, and asking her to flush it if it were. BFD.
I can tell you, honestly, if this had been my child I would have been seeing red. I would have damaged those people.
I used to carry 1200 mg ibuprofen back in the day when I had "stress induced headaches." When I got caught with it, they just said "Get a note from your doctor to bring this on campus." This was Los Angeles Unified School Disctrict - They find any reason to expell you from school. From the Artical:'Lawyers for the school district said in a brief that it was âoeon the front lines of a decades-long struggle against drug abuse among students.â Abuse of prescription and over-the-counter medications is on the rise among 12- and 13-year-olds, the brief said, citing data from the Office of National Drug Control Policy.' Srsly? What do you get when you take tons of ibuprofen? Last time I checked, just a damaged liver.
Not to defend the school district (total assholes), but they're not the problem The problem is the "zero tolerance" mentality. It says that there are no gray areas, no innocent people who are only technically breaking the rules.
In this case, "zero tolerance" means that the mere suspicion the student was hiding prescription strength ibuprofen (I guess OTC ibuprofen is OK!) is enough to justify the total humiliation of a student.
And the school district bozos are only following society in general. Lately, we've been sneering at Dubya for saying "I don't do nuance." But he's only following a path we've been running down for a couple of decades now. Zero Tolerance for Drugs! Zero Tolerance for Terrorism! Zero tolerance for Opponents of the Permanent Majority!
That last one has finally convinced most people that we've gone too far. (Though Rush Limbaugh doesn't seem to have gotten the memo.) None too soon, either.
that "Zero Tolerance" policies are absurd. There is a reason why we have judge and juries. Laws do not apply evenly. Regardless of the policy, any reasonable person would see how stupid it was to trust another student's accusations and then harass a student with a good record over one pill of OTC pain relief.
Just say no to zero tolerance.
Everything you know is wrong, Just forget the words and sing along.
Students, let this be a warning to you. If asked to be searched, refuse. If they forcibly search you, that's assault. If they move or remove your underwear, that's sexual assault. Make sure that the bastards get charged with the felonies that these are.
The correct course of action for school administrators is to ask questions and act on credible evidence. The word of a minor (another student) is not credible.
If I was the girls father I would now be facing my own charges of assault and battery for beating the shit out of the school assistance principle and the two staffers who strip searched my daughter for suspicion of having a fucking aspirin.
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
There would be a related story about my murder trial. These assholes are fucking sick.
Fucking forced logins..... here's the whole article:
March 24, 2009
Strip-Search of Girl Tests Limit of School Policy
By ADAM LIPTAK
SAFFORD, Ariz. - Savana Redding still remembers the clothes she had on - black stretch pants with butterfly patches and a pink T-shirt - the day school officials here forced her to strip six years ago. She was 13 and in eighth grade.
An assistant principal, enforcing the school's antidrug policies, suspected her of having brought prescription-strength ibuprofen pills to school. One of the pills is as strong as two Advils.
The search by two female school employees was methodical and humiliating, Ms. Redding said. After she had stripped to her underwear, "they asked me to pull out my bra and move it from side to side," she said. "They made me open my legs and pull out my underwear."
Ms. Redding, an honors student, had no pills. But she had a furious mother and a lawyer, and now her case has reached the Supreme Court, which will hear arguments on April 21.
The case will require the justices to consider the thorny question of just how much leeway school officials should have in policing zero-tolerance policies for drugs and violence, and the court is likely to provide important guidance to schools around the nation.
In Ms. Redding's case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, ruled that school officials had violated the Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches. Writing for the majority, Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw said, "It does not require a constitutional scholar to conclude that a nude search of a 13-year-old child is an invasion of constitutional rights."
"More than that," Judge Wardlaw added, "it is a violation of any known principle of human dignity."
Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, dissenting, said the case was in some ways "a close call," given the "humiliation and degradation" involved. But, Judge Hawkins concluded, "I do not think it was unreasonable for school officials, acting in good faith, to conduct the search in an effort to obviate a potential threat to the health and safety of their students."
Richard Arum, who teaches sociology and education at New York University, said he would have handled the incident differently. But Professor Arum said the Supreme Court should proceed cautiously.
"Do we really want to encourage cases," Professor Arum asked, "where students and parents are seeking monetary damages against educators in such school-specific matters where reasonable people can disagree about what is appropriate under the circumstances?"
The Supreme Court's last major decision on school searches based on individual suspicion - as opposed to systematic drug testing programs - was in 1985, when it allowed school officials to search a student's purse without a warrant or probable cause as long their suspicions were reasonable. It did not address intimate searches.
In a friend-of-the-court brief in Ms. Redding's case, the federal government said the search of her was unreasonable because officials had no reason to believe she was "carrying the pills inside her undergarments, attached to her nude body, or anywhere else that a strip search would reveal."
The government added, though, that the scope of the 1985 case was not well established at the time of the 2003 search, so the assistant principal should not be subject to a lawsuit.
Sitting in her aunt's house in this bedraggled mining town a two-hour drive northeast of Tucson, Ms. Redding, now 19, described the middle-school cliques and jealousies that she said had led to the search. "There are preppy kids, gothic kids, nerdy types," she said. "I was in between nerdy and preppy."
One of her friends since early childhood had moved in another direction. "She started acting weird and wearing black," Ms. Redding said. "She started being embarrassed by me because I was nerdy."
When the friend was found with ibuprofen pills, she blamed Ms. Redding, according to court p
âoeDo we really want to encourage cases,â Professor Arum asked, âoewhere students and parents are seeking monetary damages against educators in such school-specific matters where reasonable people can disagree about what is appropriate under the circumstances?â
Reasonable people don't search other people, regardless of age, over Ibuprofen. Reasonable people don't search KIDS because of the accusations of liars. If a public school administrator moron thinks a kid is doing illegal drugs, you call their parents and maybe the cops.
Fucking moron.
Nobody is accusing her of being in possession of a Penis Mightier!
And I thought bad enough that there's no public school in catalunya, spain, where a kid learns in spanish... They give you classes in catalan and "foreigner language spanish".
But hey, strip search?
For ibuprofen?
Any school official, who strip searches a child, for any reason, is a pedophile.
Why are they not being treated as such?
Why?
Strip searching is completely different from, say, sending a child to bed without dinner.
The day that children are allowed to do anything they want regardless of the parents is the day that children rule the world. Have you ever seen a two year old? Completely selfish. Would not at all be interested in helping "open source software." Haven't you seen 12 year olds act like two year olds? And 22 year olds act like 12 year olds? If they don't get their way, they whine and cry and throw tantrums because they expect to get their way, because that's how it's happened all their life.
The world doesn't work that way. It is not incorrect to say I was spanked as a kid and I turned out [sic] OK. On the other hand, many people seem to think that if children's desires were just gratified more as a child, they wouldn't be so problematic. We are having more and more kids have everything the want, and it's been that way increasingly for a while now. Seen any improvements in "bad things" such as greed, poverty, violence, sexual assault, etc.?
I would venture to guess that school officials such as these two female ones that strip-searched a 13 year old girl based on an accusation from a kid (who, by the way, when faced with real consequences of his actions, thought he would just get out of it by lying - something some kids are spanked for and learn is not good. Hm...) are not accustomed to not getting what they want, and likely would have gotten quite mad if the girl had refused to do what they told her to. Authority "complexes" don't come from not having every desire fulfilled as a child. "Spoiled brats" are usually quite bossy and get quite angry when they don't get their way. Seems like that behavior continues into adulthood.
Curbing that behavior in a child is pretty important. It has nothing to do with dignity, it has to do with wanting the child to behave well and not simply float around, expecting (WRONGLY) everything to be his for the ordering. That is letting the child grow up in a lie. Very respectful of his dignity, I'm sure.
I have almost routinely gotten modded down as "troll" when I posted anything other than the "popular" point of view, even when it was polite and non-antagonistic.
Plain and simple, some of the modders here on Slashdot might as well be children with cans of spraypaint. Anything they don't like gets a moustache drawn on it.
Please show me a five year old who has the mental faculties to understand he should not touch a hot stove burner simply by explanation?
You wouldn't expect a child to escape danger with their juvenile bodies, because something that would pose little risk to an adult can kill a child. Why would you then presume that they are mature enough mentally to understand dangers that are obvious to an adult.
Punishment does not equate abuse, and anyone who fails to protect their children is doing them a disservice.
It's deeper than that. It's not just children. It's a symptom of all of us getting bent over for all kinds of stupid crap in the name of protecting us from something or other in the most moronic way possible.
As for this particular case, I swear schools are run by some of the stupidest people on the planet (both administrators and teachers).
a. she's under 18.
b. she pays no income taxes
Conclusion: guilty.
No-taxation, No-reprezent'in. Laws/Amendments, IMO, other than safety or ethical based, do not apply in this case.
To enforce a policy of minimal tolerance, you are implicitly required to use minimal thought.
It doesn't apply if you're student -- courts have ruled that schools are acting as guardian ad litem for all students under its care and therefore have most of the rights generally reserved for parents, allowing them to take actions generally prohibited by agents of the state.
I'm not saying that's the way things should be, but it's most certainly the way they are.
When i have kids i'm raising them to fight back against crap like this. I'd be wanting to press sexual assult charges against the school employee's that conducted this search. all they had was some other students word, which is NOT enough.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Okay, being 13 is perhaps not the same as being 18 or 21. But, at 13, you know damn good and well not to let some teacher or other adult force you into a situation where you feel violated or dirty.
I have a little girl who is turning five tomorrow. My wife and I have made the decision to not subject my child to the whims and such of any school officials. If my kid is ever put into a situation where these types of events are about to occur, then she is to immediately leave the school, call us, and damn what the fucking school board or local law enforcement says.
I have this child, and she is my prime responsibility in life. I don't care what some misguided school moron says is their right and the correct procedure. If nothing else, my kid can change school districts, and I'll go get my gun.
I feel sorry that this happened to this girl. However, I don't understand why she let it happened. Do any of us really think that the two female officials were going to hold her down and strip her naked in order to look for some crappy $4.00 pills?
Here's a simple maxim:
My kid. Not yours. Treat well and with respect. You hurt her, you commit a crime towards her, I get my gun. You die. I am bigger, and smarter, and I win, especially when I have the gun.
While I also think it is irrelevant, that just sounds really bad coming from a school official. You stay class Safford, AZ school district.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
Anyone want to place bets the supreme court will agree with the state, and restrict a students rights?
After reading Morse v. Frederick, only John Paul Stevens understood the right for first amendment rights to protest illegal behavior. (aka Vietnam and medical marijuana as examples)
Chief Justice Roberts went along the normal "war against drugs" lie, that they had to punish the student to "SEND A MESSAGE"...
Justice Clarence Thomas viewed schools have no free speech and "Teachers commanded, and students obeyed."
It's crazy. I think I understand the issue better than then most of the Supreme Court, the most educated, the best of the best? They agreed to strip a fundamental right away for a war on drugs, and to make a teachers job easier. To allow a child to be randomly strip searched without proper cause? To prevent protests in a non-disrupting behavior off school grounds? wow.. just wow...
Why am I always disagreeing with them on most issues. I talk to co-workers, family and friends, and we seem to be in the same beliefs and values. Yet, I read the Supreme Courts views and I disagree, most of the time. I very rarely agree with the court. Few times have I cheered decisions about cases. Take Lawrence v. Texas which effectively legalized being gay. And of course, Scalia, Rehnquist, Thomas dissented. My favorite comment roughly (I cant find it) from Texas "We dont discriminate against Gays just Gay Sex", and a justice asked "What is the difference?"
I'll end this lengthy topic that means much to me with a Scala qoute.
"Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best ... But persuading one's fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one's views in absence of democratic majority will is something else." --Scalia.
I remember being in 7th grade, which is when I was 13 years old. I remember how innocent life was for me at that age. If this had happened to me at that time, I'd have dropped out of school. Compulsory education does not mean compulsory Guantanamo tactics. Seriously, if strip search is allowed, then why not torture? Rip off a few fingernails until a 13 year old is willing to admit to having ibuprofen.
Wow, ironic. Captcha: "humane".
Granted I have no children, nor do I work for the public school system, but I find it physically disgusting that school officials (female, in particular, not that it matters) were allowed to strip search a 13 year old girl. I was disgusted 6 years ago when it happened, and though I haven't been following this story that closely, I'm physically disgusted now.
After reading the Times article, which I hope is 100% accurate in it's information, I saw NO reason for school administrators having the authority to strip search a 13 year old on school grounds. Suspicion or no suspicion, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS should not have the authority to strip search ANY STUDENT, regardless of age, and regardless of reason! That is something for the law, which I still deem questionable in this specific case, or a medical professional, namely a M.D., not a nurse.
That being said, the whole scenario around the search in the first place is questionable, and second hand at best. I truly hope the Supreme Court rules that it is a 4th Amendment Violation, and gives Zero Tolerance the good bitch-slap that it needs. I.S.D's and Zero Tolerance have gotten way out of hand in this country and if it takes a S.C. ruling to wake everyone up so be it.
And for all the 'Think of the Children' types out there, not that there are probably a lot on /. , I AM thinking of the children. I'm thinking school children of any age, shouldn't have to be strip searched by school officials in any capacity. Ever! Are you really willing to concede THAT MUCH authority to the public education system in this country?
My kids understood the concept of a hot stove at about 18 months without nothing but explanation. I still have to watch the 2 year old to keep him out of danger, but there's no need to teach him that violence can be used to solve problems where someone is doing something you don't want them to.
The right to privacy, the right to eat when and however much you want, the right to sleep when you are sleepy and use the bathroom when you are ready, are taken away from you when you are a child
Obviously these are things that need to come in as a child ages. My son sometimes screams his brains out when I change his diaper. It still needs to be done.
Obviously doing the same thing for a 4 year old would involve different considerations (and so on for an 8 year old or adult). Children do need a measure of protection from themselves, and that may involve managing their eating, sleep, and behavior until they can manage it themselves.
Many parents abuse their authority over their children, but as usual it's a question of balance.
Incorrect: "I was spanked as a kid and I turned OK."
Correct: "I was spanked as a kid and I grew up to believe that spanking is OK."
I've seen light spanking (or "very angry" tones) used responsibly with very young children (in cases where a dangerous behavior could not be curbed in other ways - things like running towards a campfire). I think it can be OK. I myself was never spanked that I remember.
All in all, I don't think this is nearly as clear as you want it to be.
Another separate issue is the belief that pain not remembered doesn't count. On this I'd imagine we'd agree - I find it incredible that, for example, circumcision is done how it is.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
Hey, I didn't know Hillary Clinton posts here!
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
Even if the Supreme Court rules that the search was illegal, school districts will continue to abuse children. First of all, any court ruling will only apply to public schools, not private preparatory nor parochial schools. Secondly, even in public schools, the local district really isn't accountable to federal law. They can get away with whatever they want. Few students and parents have the time and money necessary to sue the district and bring the case though the court system. Discipline in the school system, be it searches or expulsions, assume guilt until innocence is proven. You need to take the expensive proactive step of suing the government to get your rights back. For students to overcome the common physical, intellectual, and sexual abuse in the school system, we need to have a serious youth movement. In Greece, teenagers aren't afraid to take over schools, battle with cops, and burn whatever gets in their way. Americans are too timid to achieve the rights that we deserve.
------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
Children are pure egoism in action. It's necessary to discipline them in order to train this egoism into compromise. This the foundation of social law and the rules of social engagement.
Given half a chance, all of us would make the entire world submit to our will, as any child desires. However, with the help of discipline, we can put this egoism to sleep. The ego suppresses what it cannot attain, therefore punishing and rewarding a child for certain actions is an effective form of conditioning.
It is a false conditioning, however. Only the most constant brainwashing can condition a child not to take $100 when no one is around. Anything less will not allow us to deny an evolutionary characteristic important to our animate survival.
Until such a time when this human characteristic has been superseded by evolutionary altruism (as present within the rest of nature, which has already evolved), discipline will remain an important part of raising a child, and children will not have identical rights to an adult.
"In the absence of the ability to establish the attribute of truth they tried to establish the noble attributes."
An assistant principal, enforcing the school's antidrug policies, suspected her of having brought prescription-strength ibuprofen pills to school. One of the pills is as strong as two Advils.
and
Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, dissenting, said the case was in some ways "a close call," given the "humiliation and degradation" involved. But, Judge Hawkins concluded, "I do not think it was unreasonable for school officials, acting in good faith, to conduct the search in an effort to obviate a potential threat to the health and safety of their students."
and
"Do we really want to encourage cases," Professor Arum asked, "where students and parents are seeking monetary damages against educators in such school-specific matters where reasonable people can disagree about what is appropriate under the circumstances?"
1.There is nothing reasonable or doubtful that thinking that two advils would do serious harm, or even minor harm to a 13 year old girl.
2. There is also nothing reasonable about strip searching a 13 year old girl who was minding her own business
3. There is nothing reasonable about strip searching a girl even if she did have a prescription for Ibuprofen
What is happening is that special interest groups are normalizing this aggressive and authoritarian policy and practice towards children (and adults as well, but that's another topic). They are continuing to normalize and escalate these nasty and unwarranted attitudes and behaviours.
The school district does not contest that Ms. Redding had no disciplinary record, but says that is irrelevant. "Her assertion should not be misread to infer that she never broke school rules," the district said of Ms. Redding in a brief, "only that she was never caught."
I would never want anyone from a school with this attitude to be involved in the education of my children.
I once got an extra search at an airport. Not a strip-search, just completely emptying my bags and lining the contents up and sending the empty bag back through the X-ray machine.
Why the extra scrutiny? I had a spare stylus for my PDA in my bag. I at first protested when they confiscated it, then laughed when I noticed they thought it might be a danger, but thought nothing of the two mechanical pencils, twice the size, sharper, and metal, that were right next to it.
I couldn't explain why I was laughing, hence the extra search.
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
Well, you can complain directly rather than waiting for anything. If you think it's so shameful, you can take direct action such as talking to the officials directly or contacting the school board who they report to.
From the school web site http://www.saffordusd.k12.az.us/
Wilson, Kerry, Mr.
Assistant Principal
Room: SMS_Office
Phone: 928-348-7040 ext. 4706
E-Mail: KWilson@saffordusd.k12.az.us
It should be interesting to see which organizations or government bodies dare to file an Amicus Briefs in support of the petitioners in this Supreme Court case. This should be a nice little flag to know who's in support of basic human and constitutional rights as they apply to children and how's towing the government party line of the Zero Tolerance policy for the War on Drugs no matter what the costs are to human rights.
Its Right for the parents to choose how to educated their children between: public schools, private schooling or home schooling. If any Court rules in favor of the school, I'd suggest parents threaten the school board and the administration of that school to withdraw their children from the school and/or that school board as a whole.
As I understand, schools and their boards are funded based on how many students are attending the school. If there's enough pressure from parents, the funding from the school will dry up. Not enough students and the admin staff and teachers responsible for this will be out of a job pretty fast. If there's no criminal charges or punitive damages awarded, getting the employees to lose their jobs (or worry/threat of) can be just as effective.
It is a false conditioning, however. Only the most constant brainwashing can condition a child not to take $100 when no one is around.
Interesting comment. I suppose you would consider any form of religion as brainwashing, as well?
I happen to be a Christian, and thus taking (stealing, you are implying) $100 "when no one is around" is two things. (1) It's wrong, what I would call a "sin." (2) It's not true that "no one" is around/"no one" sees me.
I'm curious if you consider that brainwashing or put it ("morality") in a different category.
When the child becomes responsible, of course. How can a baby be a citizen? They are physically, mentally and socially totally incapable of surviving in society. How can you vote when you don't even know language?
What's happening is a result of the growing gap between childhood and adulthood. What used to happen was that physical and social maturity used to occur at roughly the same time, about 14 or 15. At that point you stopped being a child and started being an adult. You left home, got a job, got married, etc.
What's happening now is that with more intensive schooling and better health care and nutrition, physical maturity happens early --- 10 is not uncommon for girls --- and social maturity happens later --- 20 or so. Sometime around World War I there suddenly emerged a new kind of creature called a teenager, which was largely physically mature but not considered competent to be an adult.
And society didn't know how to deal with teenagers, and right now is struggling to cope, with huge swings back and forth between extremes in behaviour. Some day we're going to have to get used to the fact that we've got sexually and physically mature children around, but it hasn't happened yet. Trying to pretend that they don't grow genitalia or working minds until they reach their 21st birthday isn't going to work. Likewise, trying to force responsibility onto children who aren't capable of handling it is equally wrong, and equally not going to work.
But you are right with one thing, of course; everyone considers the society they grew up in to be normal, regardless how damaging it was to them or to society as a whole. It's all too easy to assume your children are going to behave like your idealised memories of your own childhood...
Just because the student was 13 doesnt mean she doesnt have constitutional rights.
I don't disagree with that. But all this focus on legalities (I'm tempted to go into my usual "slashdotters think too highly of their own legal expertise" rant) kind of misses the most important point: these school administrators humiliated a 13-year-old, all in the name of verifying that she wasn't "smuggling" some pills that aren't even for a drug of abuse! Rather than parsing the fine points of case law, we should be asking what kind of mentality makes this acceptable, legal or not.
The only reason they did not find drugs on her is they failed to do a cavity search. They should have stripped her, bent her over, put on some gloves, and inspected her. Then they wouldn't even be in trouble, because they would have found the illegal contraband and the whole case would be moot! /sarcasm
Why was there no outrage then?
Here is information for the docket for this case from the US Supreme Court's web site. Feel free to show your support by joining Join the American Civil Liberties Union.
US Supreme Court - Docket - 08-479
... topless at the beach and send it via eMail to her friends, she might go to jail.
If some asshole school teachers strip search her because of false accusation of another student (which in itself would be enough of a scandal), everything is just "fine"?
If that's the current state of the US of A's legislation, you are very much more f*cked than the europeans. And I thought we are bad off with all that internet censorship....
PS: sorry, I forgot. Topless at the beach, 13yo... don't think that would happen on a US beach, would it? Anyway.
The desire to receive everything for oneself is inherent within our nature. No doubt you're familiar with the concept of original sin?
Morality must always be imposed by an environment. It is therefore not an absolute concept, but an abstract one. It is however a very necessary social construct. Without it, a society will fall apart, Sodom and Gomorrah style.
Any time an animate body rejects a form of pleasure, it must account for it. Things like "it's better for society" - in other words, considering the desires of the other - are a way to account for this rejection. Without this consideration of another's desires, the body will refuse to reject the pleasure, and instead partake in it - i.e take that $100 when no-one is around.
Because this concept of considering another's desires runs diametrically opposed to the concept of our personal, animate evolution, it requires the brainwashing of an environment in order to succeed. For this reason I would consider any form of morality or social abstraction a form of brainwashing. It's what separates us from the animals.
"In the absence of the ability to establish the attribute of truth they tried to establish the noble attributes."
1) Major ammunition and justification for "authority figures" of all kinds to abuse their authority.
2) Kiss your civil rights good bye. "Zero tolerance", "strip searches", the whole litany of jackbooted thuggery.
This case makes me sick, even though as a parent of public school children I am a zealous advocate of school order & discipline. I want an environment my kids can learn in, free from bullying, disruption and criminal behavior.
But I don't want them checking into Pelican Bay's Secure Housing Unit in the guise of getting an education, either.
..I seriously doubt the government told the people who did this, that they're allowed to strip search kids (regardless of whether or not the government even has the authority to do that). Government doesn't always fully use all its granted powers (though it usually exceeds them).
And even in the unlikely case that the government (perhaps illegally) passed a law saying that school administrators are allowed to strip search kids, they almost certainly have a conflict, where that same act also just happens to be a sex crime.
What I mean is, no matter what SCOTUS says, we should assume the people who did this are 1) in jail for their crime 2) fired for rather dramatically exceeding what their boss said they're allowed to do.
Even if The People lose this one, the bad guy loses too.
I'm not american, and I've not bothered to look it up, but what part of the constitution refers to citizens as opposed to human beings in general?
I've got half a mind to barge into that school and demand the staff involved to strip down. After all, they may have drugs hiding too!
It's molestation, plain and simple. If I, joe average, force a minor girl to strip for any reason other than she's literally *on fire*, I'd be put in jail and registered as a sex offender. So just because they're school officials they can get away with it? B.S. Makes me wonder if they would've been willing to do a cavity search too. She could've had drugs hiding really really well!
And that she had NO record of disciplinary actions just makes it all the worse. This is child abuse.
take away their teaching licenses. Sue them civilly, take their houses. Picket any school stupid enough to hire them. A complete public sacrifice. After that, no school official would dare try.
How old do you think parent is?
Since Obama is marching us all to socialism anyway, who's to say that the kids ARENT the property of the State, just like Elian Gonzalez ?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
"Children are pure egoism in action. It's necessary to discipline them in order to train this egoism into compromise. This the foundation of social law and the rules of social engagement."
Sorry to disappoint you, but this viewpoint originated in the dark ages when 50-70% of children were being left on the road for the wild animals and slavehunters, incest was the norm and severe physical torture and punishment were daily routine (check out Parenting for a Peaceful World for the dark history on human rearing through the ages).
"Children are born bad and must be made good" comes from hearsay, religious writings, righteous parents and pure ignorance.
"Discipline" is conditioning through violence. Rewards are conditioning through manipulation. There are other ways to inspire the qualities you see in a healthy adult, and still respect the core dignity of the child as a human being.
Children are born with only 25% of their brain developed. They are helpless and depend on adults for survival and are wired to survive. When a baby is crying in the middle of the night that's because they need food or comforting or something else, and definitely not because they are "trying to manipulate their parents"
I highly recommend Alfie Kohn's Unconditional Parenting for better understanding of child development and age-appropriate parenting.
I'll drill it into my daughter's head that something like this is never OK. She has the right to say no and refuse to submit to something like this. She can stand up for her rights. If the school continues to pressure, she'll have my permission to call a lawyer. Or start screaming "rape" or yelling for "help". If they so much as look at her wrong after that they better find a lawyer themselves. Cause I'll have no mercy on them.
Ibuprofen is the gateway drug to liver failure!
You just got troll'd!
Let's just have Zero Tolerance to Zero Tolerance!
Phone: 928-348-7040 ext. 4706
E-Mail: KWilson@saffordusd.k12.az.us
The teachers need to think about the consequences of their actions. No one is asking them to allow it, just not to treat a child in an undignified way because she was accused of violating the rule.
If a teacher found the bottle, that's another story (you're right, confiscate it and punish her), but no reasonable person can claim strip searching her is justified. The school should put her safety first, the risk to her of being strip searched is higher than the risk of her carrying the medication.
When did you choose to become a Christian? What other choices did you consider?
If your family was Christian, did they introduce you to Buddhism, Shintoism, Islam, Daoism and ask you which one rings true for you?
If you were told about God as a fact then someone presented their faith to you as reality.
If this happened before you could clearly distinguish reality from fantasy (which starts happening around the age of 4), then this is pretty dark manipulation, don't you think so?
If you were asked to repeat certain words, prayers, rituals, given rewards and approval upon compliance and punishment for noncompliance, then that's conditioning through pain and psychological torture.
Religious organizations have used brainwashing and conditioning for ages.
So, when did *you* choose to be a Christian?
Brainwashing somewhat implies a non-rational response though. Morality can be taught, you might say, but with a rational response. The term "brainwash" carries along a lot of connotations that imply irrationality and forcing views on someone that he wouldn't come to on his own.
Yes, I'm certainly familiar with the contept of original sin. Now, where I would differ from you is that I believe an actual change of our inherent "moral" nature, if you will, is possible. It's what "evangelical" Christianity's big deal about the Gospel is. True Christianity isn't [supposed to be] a morality/standard that is imposed on people from outside.
Now, I'm curious. It sounds like you believe in evolutionary principles. Why is it you refer to the non-humans as animals and separate from us?
I mean, serisouly, how stupid are these people?
Just your basic morons. But then it's a representational government. Greedy idiots elected by greedy idiots. That's the way it works.
Sorry to disappoint you, but this viewpoint originated in the dark ages when 50-70% of children were being left on the road for the wild animals and slavehunters, incest was the norm and severe physical torture and punishment were daily routine
Perhaps I should elaborate. I meant discipline according to its dictionary definition.
"Children are born bad and must be made good" comes from hearsay, religious writings, righteous parents and pure ignorance.
Most definitely correct. Therefore, I am at a loss as to why you entertain such superstition.
"Discipline" is conditioning through violence. Rewards are conditioning through manipulation. There are other ways to inspire the qualities you see in a healthy adult, and still respect the core dignity of the child as a human being.
Give me some examples.
Children are born with only 25% of their brain developed. They are helpless and depend on adults for survival and are wired to survive. When a baby is crying in the middle of the night that's because they need food or comforting or something else, and definitely not because they are "trying to manipulate their parents"
Refer above. I hope I made it clear enough that egoism - such as a baby crying at night - is an evolutionary characteristic. I am neither praising nor condemning necessity.
"In the absence of the ability to establish the attribute of truth they tried to establish the noble attributes."
The right to privacy, the right to eat when and however much you want, the right to sleep when you are sleepy and use the bathroom when you are ready, are taken away from you when you are a child.
Can I live in your world, where children aren't naturally narcissistic, messy, gluttonous, and willful creatures?
If you're a fan of evolutionary theory, homo sapiens sapiens stems from a hunter-gatherer small-tribe society, and we only recently banded together into unnatural large groups where we have to learn to work with others doing very specialized tasks (instead of everyone hunts/gathers/fights).
If you're a fan of Judeo-Christian creationism, homo sapiens sapiens was created as a hunter-gatherer-farmer small-tribe society, and we semi-recently banded together into unnatural large groups where we have to learn to work with others doing very specialized tasks (instead of everyone hunts/gathers/farms/fights).
Point being, Pippi-Longstocking is a fictional story about childhood freedom. It's not real. Children would die if we let them do whatever the *#$^ they want (although from an evolutionary standpoint, homo sapiens sapiens might develop an instinctual aversion to drinking from plastic bottles with caustic chemicals after 40,000 years. Oh, wait, society would have crumbled due to the I AM generation [being the next logical step after the Me-generation] so there wouldn't be plastic bottles).
I have evil memories of my years as a public school student.
I remember physical abuse (including a gym teacher who once beat me with a shoe for something that I didn't do), and school administrators lying to my parents about it.
I once witnessed a fight, but was a non-participant. I couldn't fight worth a damn and never tried. Nonetheless, I was dragged into the principal's office, screamed at, and held there after school for two hours. I was let go only after both participants agreed that I had nothing to do with the fight. No apology, they just let me go.
No wonder some kids end up coming back with firearms and wreak retribution.
This was over 35 years ago. I doubt that it's gotten any better.
"The day that children are allowed to do anything they want regardless of the parents is the day that children rule the world. Have you ever seen a two year old? Completely selfish. "
Children naturally grow through different phases which make adults uncomfortable in different ways. Habitually, adults try to make children responsible for their comfort and change their natural behaviors. But children are not our emotional caregivers, it's the other way around.
A two year old is not selfish. This is a projection happening because we adults do not properly understand the psychology of the undeveloped human brain. Some skills develop before others, and that's predetermined by nature, not the child's choice. At the age of two the sense of "self" starts emerging. The child starts feeling their own will. Lots of experimentation, discovery of the world. Strong feelings and desires unmanageable for the child. A 2-year old does not have control over these and it will be years before it learns to self-regulate.
Saying that a child is selfish presumes that this is just a small-ish adult who acts selfishly. Incorrect. The social skills develop after the sense of "self" develops.
For instance what parents call temper tantrums are overwhelming floods of feelings which change the child's brain chemistry and often disables their ability to reason and even understand language.
There are many ways to prevent children from harming themselves or others without harming the children. There are ways to maintain boundaries without turning children into prisoners.
Coming down on the side of the girl, thank God. It's nice to see that some people in Washington are still remotely sane.
What is the role of punishment in a child not touching a stove? If punishment is the only tool in your educator's toolbox, then I suggest you look for other tools.
How is punishment not an abuse? If you get 10 leashes for being late to work would that be OK?
Or do you mean "Punishment is not an abuse when on the receiving end we have a child"?
'not excessively intrusive in light of [the student's] age and sex and the nature of her suspected infraction.'
This is the most ridiculous part, I think. As a 13 year old girl, I definitely could've used some ibuprofen once a month.
to those who didn't read the article ...
The event in question (and the whole "Zero Tolerance" fad) was six years ago, not yesterday.
The strip search itself is not news..its just now getting to supreme court, is all.
It's not stupid. It's Advanced.
The federal lawyers arguing the government's case should be strip searched every day before entering the Supreme Court. It's only fair, after all, to require the same from adults who are entering what is clearly a more important and sensitive building. I bet half of them are smoking crack anyway, and we need to be absolutely sure that they don't bring it into the court room.
Brainwashing somewhat implies a non-rational response though.
Totally right. Perhaps "social conditioning" is a better euphemism? Or "rehabilitation" haha
Morality can be taught, you might say, but with a rational response.
I would define "rational response" as "most pleasure for least effort". Morality is taught with these requirements in mind. The child learns that it is easier to get what it wants if it goes about it in a nice way - please, thankyou, yes sir, no sir. This is no way changes the underlying motivation, just suppresses it - puts it to sleep.
Yes, I'm certainly familiar with the contept of original sin. Now, where I would differ from you is that I believe an actual change of our inherent "moral" nature, if you will, is possible. It's what "evangelical" Christianity's big deal about the Gospel is. True Christianity isn't [supposed to be] a morality/standard that is imposed on people from outside.
We're not so different. Although I don't believe a change is possible in our moral nature, I believe it is very possible to clothe it with a greater, purer intention. Bringing these powerful egoistic, moral concerns into alignment with the laws of nature is the ultimate goal of creation. Suppressing them is not, it is only a preparative stage.
Now, I'm curious. It sounds like you believe in evolutionary principles. Why is it you refer to the non-humans as animals and separate from us?
Evolution is a lie. From what I perceive, desire is the motivating force behind creation. There is a lack, it must be filled. A stone desires nothing more than to keep its shape. A plant has a greater vessel of desire than a stone. It now can grow, but must depend on its environment slightly more in return. A greater level of desire results in more abilities, such as movement, speech and so on. The desire of each level, from still, to vegetative, animate, and speaking, is an order of magnitude higher than the previous one. Animals are only as separate from us as a baby from its mother.
Humanity is the order of creation that is most dependent on their environment, a fact that will come to greater light in the future. The suffering caused by incorrectly asserting our independence from the overall Human organism is a cause of great suffering, which will pass as we integrate and unite.
"In the absence of the ability to establish the attribute of truth they tried to establish the noble attributes."
A two year old is not selfish. This is a projection happening because we adults do not properly understand the psychology of the undeveloped human brain. Some skills develop before others, and that's predetermined by nature, not the child's choice. At the age of two the sense of "self" starts emerging. The child starts feeling their own will. Lots of experimentation, discovery of the world. Strong feelings and desires unmanageable for the child. A 2-year old does not have control over these and it will be years before it learns to self-regulate.
What you're saying is: "You weren't hit by the boulder rolling down the hill. It had no choice in the matter, so it didn't 'hit' you."
Just because children have no choice but to act selfishly does not mean they are not selfish; it instead means that their core _is_ selfishness.
My question here is, what does the policy really ban?
Illegal drugs i can see. Underage drinking, smoking, sure. They're all illegal things in the real world.
But even a prescription drug, why would this be banned in a school?
kids have honest to god illnesses that require prescription drugs. Are they all required to get exemptions or have some sort of note? And if so, why?
In Soviet Russia you are strip s...
Hang on, something's not right here.
The important thing in this case is that she is preppy, nerdy, and white.
OK, I'll spell this out real simple for you idiot school officials (and judges) who think this is OK. You think my daughter has drugs on her? Fine. Call me or her mother to come pick her up and we'll figure out if she has drugs on her or not.
YOU DO NOT REMOVE HER CLOTHES AND CHECK FOR YOURSELF!!! Your are there to teach, not to act like wannabe DEA agents.
Understand?
This is a great point.
Hosting and Domain name coupons
"My son sometimes screams his brains out when I change his diaper. It still needs to be done."
Of course, and you do it. Punishing your son for it would be excessive.
Sometimes he may not be ready to eat at dinner time. Demanding that he eats at a time convenient by you and not according to his biological cycle would be unhealthy for him and more convenient for you.
Showing your child how you feel while staying connected with them is one type of situation. (Seemingly) attacking your child and causing them pain, is a different situation. If a child experiences fight/flight condition because of something the parent did, then something is wrong.
The child running towards the campfire may be handled without violence. It is possible.
Nonviolent parenting != permissive parenting.
Seriously?
The fact that teachers got a child to snitch out another child over some ibuprofen is the first thing that should worry us.
The fact that adults thought it was appropriate to strip search a 13 year old over ibuprofen is the second thing that should worry us.
The fact that the child was so used to following authority that she did not say 'fuck you' when told to strip is the third thing that should worry us.
The fact that someone will actually defend this in hindsight is the most worrying thing of all. Would a full cavity search have been OK with you as well?
Finally I'm guessing that the previous 'overdose' was an equally stupid zero tolerance/cover your ass based overreaction.
The responsible people and the school need a severe smack down in civil court. Start by taking the vice principles net worth times four from him (leave him destitute and in debt). Then hit the school for enough money to pay for the girls college after lawyers fees.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
1) A strip-search of a 13 year old by legal authorities is not illegal in of itself,,,its not a sex crime.
2) The supreme court has said that the gravity of the accused offense affects whether a search is proper
3) If the child was suspected of carrying a gun or other weapon, a seach could be in order. In this case however it was not a weapon not even an illegal drug but a non-narcotic prescription drug and the only evidence was the accusation of another student.
4) What amazes me is that the assistant principal didnt bother to attempt to call the parents first. A strip-search of a 13 year old is not an every day event.
The supreme court needs to draw some clear lines here.
Examples: Unconditional Parenting by Alfie Kohn.
Scientific research referenced for almost every statement he makes.
Here's a description of the book on his website: http://www.alfiekohn.org/up/index.html
Highly recommended for any present/future parent.
Nonvilent parenting != permissive parenting
Maybe I am misunderstanding you.
I think that judging someone as "selfish" implies a choice or at least capacity for them to act differently.
Looking at the definition by Merriam Webster, I think you can mean #1 for a toddler. Meaning #2 would indicate expectations beyond what's developmentally normal for that age.
Given that the word is the same and you may say #1 but be heard as saying #2, I think that "independent" is a better word.
1: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
2: arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others
"Can I live in your world, where children aren't naturally narcissistic, messy, gluttonous, and willful creatures?"
Sure, just take the labels off the behaviors you judge as such.
These are all words with negative connotations.
Narcissistic = interested in themselves. wanting to pursue what feels good to them.
Messy = very interested in exploring, regardless of resulting mess
Gluttonous = loving tasty food that feels good to the taste buds and tummy
Willful = independent, as in independent being, exploring the world, learning to get what it wants from the universe
It's not the children, it's us.
I don't like the ramifications that this suggests if the search is allowed. The main one is that it is making our children second-class citizens. Schools are the first place people learn how to interact with society. Unfortunately students get detentions on little or no evidence, they are categorized for risk by the people they hangout with, and many rules have cruel or unusually sever punishment. No wonder children have trouble adjusting to fit into society and distrust all authority around them. Our schools are giving them a reason to.
Keep in mind that the "originalist" viewpoint espoused by the conservative wing of the court is basically that the way rights were looked at in 1790 is almost always the way we should be looking at them now. We're talking about a mentality that students have no rights whatsoever and that school officials should essentially be given permission to do whatever they want.
Where the fuck does "suspected" equal the issuing of a warrant upon probable cause?
O.K., so New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985), held that searches in public schools do not require warrants but only reasonable grounds for believing that the search will result in the finding of evidence of illegal activity.
What the hell were the reasonable grounds, then?
A zero-tolerance policy does not constitute "reasonable grounds" to me. Heck, this was an honors student, with presumably a clean reputation.
If some perverted teacher did that to my daughter, his or her head might quite possibly be meeting the business end of an ax, to ensure that my daughter would, in the future, be secure in her person and never risk violation of her rights by that individual again.
In Liberty, Rene
Is that the assistant principal at the time who ordered the strip searches of both children is still employed as the assistant principal of Safford Middle School. This is the directory of information for him at the bottom of this page:
http://www.saffordusd.k12.az.us/exec/eSiteAddress.asp?set_site_to=sms&division=Site:+Principal&group_is=&group_id=
Wilson, Kerry, Mr.
Assistant Principal
Room: SMS_Office
Phone: 928-348-7040 ext. 4706
E-Mail: KWilson@saffordusd.k12.az.us
Here is what I fail to understand: This monster and idiot did not have enough judgement to realize this was sexual harassment of minor, child abuse, and a violation of unreasonable search and seizure and yet to this day he is still allowed to work with children? At the same job! I mean if I had cost my employer so much money in legal matters alone I would have been immediately sh*tcanned and anyone that called for references would have been told that they would not hire me again given the choice.
Here is the contact info for the principal:
SMS Principal Contact
612 W. 11th Street
Safford, AZ 85546
Phone: 928-348-7040 ext. 4701
Fax: 928-348-7041
cEmery@SaffordUSD.k12.az.us
Here is the contact info for the super intendant:
Dr. Mark R. Tregaskes
734 W. 11th St.
Safford, AZ 85546
Phone: 928-348-7000 ext. 7203
Fax: 928-348-7001
Here are the school board members:
http://www.saffordusd.k12.az.us/exec/eHome.asp?set_site_to=RAC&division=RAC:+Board+News&group_is=
Mr. Mike DeLaO, Governing Board President
Mrs. Julie Cluff, Governing Board Member
Mrs. Diane Junion, Governing Board Member
Dr. Richard Lines, Governing Board Member
Mr. David Player, Governing Board Member
Board News Contact
734 W. 11th St.
Safford, AZ 85546
Phone: 928-348-7000 ext. 7701
Fax: 928-348-7001
gcurtis@SaffordUSD.k12.az.us
City of Safford
http://www.cityofsafford.us/?q=taxonomy/term/2
717 W Main Street
P.O. Box 272
Safford, Az 85548
Phone:(928) 348-3100
info@ci.safford.az.us
I think those of us that are more sensible should write some civil but clear letters to help them see how miserably poor judgement certain employees of theirs have.
I'm going to burn in hell for this, but someone has to do it:
Pics or it didn't happen!
How appropriate, the captcha was "hologram".
I like my coffee the way I like my women - roasted and ground up into little tiny pieces.
Many parents resort to spanking their child to give them a lesson. When was the last time your boss spanked you or grounded you for not meeting the project deadline?
Two responses:
1) He doesn't have to, because I was taught that there are hard boundaries in the world by my parents who spanked me.
2) In truth, what my boss can do when I'm out of line is far worse: He can fire me. He can send me to my room without dinner... and without my room!
I was about 8 or 9 when I figured out that the spankings didn't actually hurt. My parents had a pizza paddle on top of the refrigerator. It was a big, light, flat piece of wood that made a terrific whooshing sound and a slap, but didn't actually hurt at all. But that was not the point. It was the following ritual:
1) Explain what I'd done wrong (spanking was an absolute last resort), and remind me how many times I had been warned against it.
2) One swat to the bum.
3) Go to my room to think about it for awhile (maybe 30 minutes)
4) Mom or Dad coming in to get me, obviously sad about the situation, sitting down on the bed next to me and saying "you can't do that, okay?" and giving me a hug.
At no point was I in any physical danger. At no point was I emotionally abused. There were no angry words spoken. My parents simply presented the image of rational people, which highlighted my own irrationality and the gap between what I was supposed to do and what I had done.
I'm sorry, but these are good lessons. I was only spanked if I did something really dangerous or bad, when I'd been warned repeatedly not to do it. It was a last resort, and I can only remember a couple instances, actually.
The world is not nearly as forgiving or rational as my parents, and consequences for acting out of line are much harsher than a noisy whack on the bottom.
So when I say that I support spanking, this is the kind of spanking I'm talking about. It's not a beating. It doesn't really hurt (maybe a little sting). It most certainly doesn't leave a mark or lingering discomfort. And it isn't "violent," as in it is not Dad, in a fit of rage, beating the tar out of the kid. It is a ritualized disciplinary act to act as an "ultimate" punishment for very small children.
By the end of elementary school, it was over. I was reasoned with like an adult, because I'd learned where the hard boundaries are, and to operate within them.
Children are not adults. They are children. They do not yet understand the social and physical boundaries necessary to live in society. They do, however, understand a stinging bottom while they think about what got them there.
Finally, a lot of this is just cultural. Many of the punishments I see parents use in Japan, I would consider mental/emotional abuse. My (Japanese) wife's father used to slap her across the face. She has a scar on her head from where he threw her into a doorknob when she was three. And she doesn't consider him to have been abusive, just to be outdated (he married very late and is almost old enough to be my parents' parent). As a result, however, if we have children, I will be controlling very strictly his contact with them. Cultural or not, if he ever laid a hand on my child like that, he'd be the one in the emergency room getting stitches.
There is a continuum here that is not well-served by "spanking is good"/"spanking is bad." Without clear delineation between behaviors, it's very hard to have a real discussion. We might be talking about very different things.
1.There is nothing reasonable or doubtful that thinking that two advils would do serious harm, or even minor harm to a 13 year old girl.
Exactly. It's prescription medicine, no mention is made of whether she had a prescription. If the school's "zero tolerance" drug policy forbade prescription drugs, that's the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard, and I've heard some pretty fucking stupid things.
"I'm sorry, Mrs Splodnatzki, your son died today in detention after we caught him trying to inject himself with Insulin. It was his blood testing kit and the prescription in his bag that tipped us off... They go bad so young these days, you really should consider your parenting. Just be glad he wasn't experimenting with Aspirin or antibiotics!"
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
I think that judging someone as "selfish" implies a choice or at least capacity for them to act differently.
I would argue that there are many among us would would not have "developed" out of the egocentricity of their twos and threes had they not been forcefully [1] and repeatedly shown that there is more to the world than their rapidly expanding sense of self.
As a counterpoint to this:
I think that judging someone as "selfish" implies a choice or at least capacity for them to act differently.
How are we to treat the murderous psychopath? She has no choice but to harm and kill. What are we to think of her? What labels shall we apply? :)
[1] force != violence
When I went to jr. high over 35 years ago (yeah, old), nothing like this ever would have happened. Kids who wanted drugs had them; those who did not, didn't. I'd be willing to bet that hasn't changed one bit. Recalling comments from my son one year about how cutbacks had been made in his school everywhere except security, I wonder if anyone has done any research on the impact of these "zero tolerance" policies. Would not better results be achieved if we treat kids with respect and give them truly interesting work to do at school instead of testing 4th amendment limits?
If you get 10 leashes for being late to work would that be OK?
That depends. Are they leather? (rrrowr!)
It not the culture that has the right to treat the child as they see fit. Or the schools. Its the parents. If the kid is to be striped searched the parents should have been present. They probably did not what to get the parents involved because they knew they could not bully the parents into allowing it like they could the child. I doubt the police would have done it without the parent there. I myself am not a believer in spanking but I am also not a believer in the government telling parents they are not allowed to spank, within reason, if they think its the right thing to do.
This construct of yours an entity that has to act like parents is moronic.
There is only one such entity and that is parents
If the school thinks strip searching is the answer they need to ground the student under supervision and call the parents .
How are we to treat the murderous psychopath? She has no choice but to harm and kill. What are we to think of her? What labels shall we apply? :)
How is this a counterpoint? People who are mentally ill and do bad things are no longer castrated, publicly ridiculed, burned as witches, or anything else. I'm curious how YOU suppose we should treat her and think of her? I'm assuming it's something other than "As a sick person who needs help and needs to be isolated from society?"
Sure, just take the labels off the behaviors you judge as such.
No amount of relabelling will change the horror that is the child-driven society of Middle and Junior High School. Children are naturally brutal, selfish, and quick to anger. As a group, they lack compassion and empathy.
There's a good reason for assigning Lord of The Flies in seventh grade. It's a real shame that that reason sails over the heads of almost every seventh grader. So much heartache and misery could be avoided if the brighter school-age children could be made to understand that this world that they and their peers have created is wholly unlike and vastly inferior to the world that most of us adults inhabit.
I had some pain-based health problems when I was in school (I was 17 at the time) and I always carried my painkillers with me and a jolly good thing too.
If my back went during class, I'd have struggled to get off my chair, let alone walk across the classroom, open the door, and then walk all the way to the office of whoever my painkillers were with in the hope that they were there.
I can see why people want a verdict about the reaosnablness of such an invasive search on this issue, but for this case the school should be ruled against on the far more fundamental basis that as a public school, they have no business trying to operate a zero tolerance policy to over-the-counter medication or prescription mediation for which the person has a prescription.
Also, teachers\school administrators performing strip-searches? WTF? What concievable reason is there for them to do that? If the student is possibly doing something which is properly illegal (not against school rules 'illegal' - properly against-the-law illegal) then turn them over to the police. Otherwise; this is already way out of hand.
FGD 135
another person blaming their woes on those dreadful people dressed in black. it's like the German dude who blamed the shootings there on video games. An easy scapegoat.
Not to mention that the social goth movement was an 80s through early/mid 90s happening that has nothing to do with these idiots now who wear trenchcoats and listen to marilyn manson. I'm sick of this shit. As a person who is still goth in his mid-30s, I resent the continual scapegoating of a movement that had serious meaning to a great many people.
...has a wikipedia page where, oddly enough, no mention of the lawsuit is made. Doesn't that seem, well, incomplete somehow? Considering how citable the case is.
So let me get this straight. You want childern to be able to eat whatever they want when they want. You want them not to learn good hygeine and you want then not learn to sleep at night.
You are also forgetting that all these decisions impact others and not just the child. Parents who work all day need their sleep and if a child decides they want to stay up until 3 AM it affects others who have the same rights that children do. However you are forgetting. Your rights end where mine begin.
I am not advocating physical abuse there are many other ways to discipline a child, but in the end they need to learn the same thing that you are forgetting. THEIR RIGHTS END WHERE OTHER PEOPLE'S BEGIN!
It doesn't apply if you're student -- courts have ruled that schools are acting as guardian ad litem for all students under its care and therefore have most of the rights generally reserved for parents, allowing them to take actions generally prohibited by agents of the state.
funnily enough, parents dont have the right to sexually assault their children either.
http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
What you're saying is: "You weren't hit by the boulder rolling down the hill. It had no choice in the matter, so it didn't 'hit' you."
The difference is that "hit" is directly observable whereas "act selfish" is something you have to judge indirectly using your own set of assumptions.
Just because children have no choice but to act selfishly does not mean they are not selfish; it instead means that their core _is_ selfishness.
Begging the question -- you assume they have no choice but to act selfishly so _of course_ their core is selfishness.
Apply your logic to the boulder: You were hit by the boulder rolling down the hill. Just because it had no choice but to carry out Satan's bidding does not mean it's not evil. The boulder is evil to the core.
What is the role of punishment in a child not touching a stove? If punishment is the only tool in your educator's toolbox, then I suggest you look for other tools.
Most parents who punish in that situation are thinking "Well, a light smack is better than a 3rd degree burn." That's obvious. I agree there are other ways of dealing with it but you are being unfair to parents who did deal with it that way.
I don't think the school had reasonable suspicion just because another student claimed to have gotten the pills from her. Informants frequently lie and children also frequently lie. The risk from an ibuprofen tablet simply is not great enough to justify a strip search of a child.
Unfortunately this sort of thing is the collateral damage of the rampantly enacted "zero-tolerance" policies. Someone said it above, and it's worth repeating -- "Zero Tolerance" is another way of saying "I don't want to make real decisions." or, more accurately, "I'd rather hide behind Zero Tolerance than take accountability for the decisions I'd otherwise have to make."
Here you see it at its finest, an absolutely abhorrent decision is made, a young girl is violated and humiliated, and the perpetrators are not only hiding behind Zero Tolerance, but actually defending their actions in it's name. They come across as if this sort of situation is actually the *reason* we need Zero-Tolerance in our schools. Despicable.
Several things need to happen -- This needs to be investigated from the girl who reported the alleged possession on up through the final events and fall-out. During this time every adult involved in the decision-making process behind this needs to be suspended immediately, without pay, unions be damned. Parents in the district need to make a hell of a stink, call for *firings* -- none of this resign under mutual confidentiality bullshit that allows these people to be hired in another district. It doesn't matter that these people will loose their jobs, regardless of whether or not they are found to directly responsible (assuming those accused are not completely uninvolved), if they knew this option was on the table, and then either perpetrated it, or allowed it to be perpetrated through inaction, they should be held accountable -- there is no justification in either case. Any criminal or negligent act needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent. The parents of this girl should file suit against the district and personally against those responsible.
Call me cold, but the people behind this act should be ruined in every way possible -- They should be thrown in jail if any laws were broken. They should loose substantial financial ground, be it their savings, their homes, or what-have-you. They should be ostracized from their community and their profession for all time. They should never be allowed to work near children in any profession.
Even all that is getting off easy, IMO, if I were anywhere near this place I would personally track them down and commit felony assault on their faces.
I hate the fact that the "Think of the children" plea has allowed schools to become exempt from constitutional control. It is absolutely a travesty.
Just fyi, in 1780 South Carolina was divided about whether they wanted independence from Great Britain. One of the outrages that swayed the population toward the side of the patriots was that British soldiers went so far as to search women for weapons. Those were not even strip searches, but were considered serious enough as to sway many to go to war with the dominant power of that age.
The fact that there are judges who think that this is a "gray area" is quite troubling.
The school officials should go to jail, any judges who disagree should be fired, and the lawmakers who wrote those damn laws should be shot. That's all I'm saying.
Oh, and greetings from the frozen continent!
I suggest you check out posting links with an actual URL. This is slashdot, you don't have to stay under 140 characters. Hell, you can use tags to link words to a lengthy URL.
"Guns were necessary for slavery"
I wonder how the Egyptians had slaves thousands of years before the invention of firearms? http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/slaves.htm
Perhaps those ancient cultures were so *clever* that they tricked the slaves into thinking they had invented guns?
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Did the school have a uniformed police "safety officer"?
If so, "Officer, I hereby place Assistant Principle Clueless under citizens' arrest for sexual assault. Officer, do you duty."
I'm just saying this thing reeks to hell of something a lot worse than just poor judgement.
Something like ... exceptionally bad judgment?
paintball
brutal, selfish, and quick to anger. As a group, they lack compassion and empathy.
How is that different from most adults? Well I would certainly agree that children can lack understanding of the harms they cause, and thus might seem unfeeling, in situations where the harms are more obvious, I would say there are many children whom are more compassionate and empathetic then adults.
While no blame can be placed at the feet of the girl or her parents, this issue does highlight some important things we must do as adults and as parents.
Firstly, anyone with a child enrolled in any institution need to be aware of that institutions policies, and to be actively involved in reforming those policies where abuse is possible. I believe it is in no way reasonable for any non-state, non-security institution to be able to strip-search anyone, let alone a minor. Does their policy handbook say that measures up-to-and-including a strip-search may be taken by school officials? That handbook should be viewed as a contract between the district and students/their parents, it should state clearly what the potential resolutions/punishments are for a given class of investigation/infraction, if they step out of line with that, they should be held accountable in the absolute.
Second, parents need to educate their children that there is a difference between respecting policy and being taken advantage of. This means teaching your children about what rights they have and which are curtailed in certain situations, and to what extent. It also means teaching them that they can, and should, peaceably resist when asked, told or threatened to go against the rights they do hold in any situation. They need to know the child-hood equivalent of "No officer, I know my rights, and you may not look in my trunk." In these situations, teach your children to request that their parents be involved -- The childhood equivalent of not speaking without an attorney present.
Having been on the wrong end of Zero-Tolerance myself, though to nowhere near the extent as the poor victim in this case, I can say that the second point will almost assuredly be met with resistance. The authority-types in the school system don't take well to the notion that there are limits on the theory of "what I say goes." They may push harder, they may get angry, they may even, in extreme cases, take physical measures to force compliance -- it would be terrible if the issue were taken to that end, but it would also make their culpability absolutely cut and dried.
"I'm sure you'll agree that the history of the Second Amendment is more notable for the decades of slavery which followed"
Actually as a result of the 2nd amendment, Ben Franklin invented bi-focal eyeglasses and Gervinus invented the circular saw. After all, those inventions came into existence right after the adoption of the 2nd amendment. Oh wait, you're talking about social trends. Well, right after the 2nd amendment was approved, Ballet became very popular. So you could say that ballet came about because of the 2nd amendment.
Back to your slavery thing... you'll find nothing in any literature before or after the adoption of the Constitution in the 1780's which suggests you are full of horseshit, and I'm being charitable. Do a little reading, stop listening to Reverend Wright for your history lesson.
And I'm sure you'll agree that "the man" is not holding anyone down anymore; the election of Barrack Obama lays to rest the myth that "the man" is holding you down. The only thing holding you down is your inability to actually read and do basic research. But don't feel bad, you're not alone. Much of the population still believes horoscopes or that they're owed a living. So you have a lot of company.
It's not as simple as that. Most societies have, for thousands of years, recognized that children are mentally and morally incomplete. They cannot be held fully responsible for their actions, and cannot be relied upon in the same way as adults. Giving them full constitutional rights and treating them like workplace peers seems to go a bit too far. Adults need sufficient power over children to raise them, and that level of power exceeds what I would want the police or my boss at work to have over me. You can't have rights without responsibilities, and children are ready for neither (at adult levels).
None of that excuses the school in this case for their brain dead policies about Ibuprofin; it's not like kids are getting high on that and wrecking their grades.
But I wonder, amidst all the libertarian outrage on this site, if people think the same strip search would have been okay if it had been a loaded gun, instead of some headache medicine?
-Oz
I would destroy, utterly, without shred of remorse, anyone who participated in this facade of 'caring'.
Guns are the first tool only of those too weak and too stupid to apply any other means to solving their problem.
paintball
The fact that something like this takes place in the United States of America is proof that this country is corrupt.
...she could've been a terrorist! You just can't be too careful these days.
"The accusation was that she had prescription-strength ibuprofen, which is not OTC medication."
Do you know how you can get prescription-strength ibuprofen? It's the same medication, just a higher dose. And not a significantly higher dose, either.
Actually, looking in the article, she was accused of having 400mg tablets. Read the back of a bottle... 400mg is a *standard dose* of OTC ibuprofen when you pull a muscle or over-do it at the gym.
Calling it "prescription-strength" is just a way to make it sound like something serious was going on. It wasn't. You can't get high on ibuprofen. I'm sure you could OD on it, but then, you can OD on aspirin. So let's push that out of the way. She had ibuprofen, what I keep in my desk drawer, what you get at the Rite-Aid for $2 for a bottle of 50 and the school's reaction is to strip search her.
Speaking of drugs, the school's administrators must be on crack to think that's an okay reaction.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Homeschooled kids have to deal with asshole neighborhood kids all the time. They also spend time with decent kids (mostly homeschooled) from many different age groups, and with adults who are not in the school industry.
In a public school, a child's social situation is often difficult for them to control. It depends on skills that are mostly learned by being in control, so an early success or failure tends to persist over the years. It depends on luck -- see the recent song popularity research that made slashdot a month or two ago, and think how this applies to humans. A good social situation is probably good for a child... but a bad social situation is often devastating.
In a public school, all your eggs are in one basket socially. If you become the kid that everybody picks on, you lose. There is no escape. (unless you change schools, but that itself puts you at a disadvantage) With homeschooling, you go meet some other group of kids and get a fresh start.
If I ever command authority to clean up...
You won't.
I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
I guess you did specify "good" public schools, but such a theoretical concept is only of academic interest. :-)
WTF?!?!?
Have any of these clueless idiots tried actually to raise a daughter without Midol(tm), or other forms of ibuprofen?
What 'reality' have they been operating in?
Any teen going through puberty is at risk (irregardless of gender)of this crap.
Again, why are we accepting this shite? To the Shooting Wall(line the pol's up to be shot in the face) with these child molesting pedants!!!!think of the children
Deny a 'going through the change' teenager Motrin(tm)?...WTF????
This can only be enacted by those that have no female children to worry about...think about it.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Here's two things that come to mind reading over the situation.
She is not an emancipated adult and therefore HAS NO RIGHTS except those explicitly granted to minors. So she has no X amendment rights to violate. They don't apply. I'm sick of hearing about minors and how their X amendment rights are supposedly being violated. They don't have those rights in the first place.
Zero tolerance is just another way of saying "We don't want to use our own judgment so therefore we say everything is bad." When I was in school we brought OTC medications with us and used them when we needed them. Now just having something they can buy at any corner store is violating some stupid blanket policy.
My biggest gripe is the assumption of rights for minors who don't actually have them, obviously. Zero tolerance is just a complete annoyance at the laziness and lack of accountability in the administration.
I can see the search of her possessions and turning out her pockets. Anything that required her to remove clothing is completely out of line. Send her home if you still think she's hiding something but for Spaghetti's sake have a shred of common sense.
Oh gee you tube says it must be true. there is not one valid point in your troll asshole, Fuck off.
What a pity I cant mod you donw further.
No one believes your drivel poor widdle wepublican is stamoing his little feet.
Ad hominem enough for you pathetic coward?
If I ever have kids, I will not permit them to go to public school for exactly this reason!
...because ... private schools are somehow different?
We're all born with nothing.
If you die in debt, you're ahead.
Sure, just take the labels off the behaviors you judge as such. These are all words with negative connotations.
Because they come with heavily negative consequences, especially when acted upon by a child who doesn't know when (or why) to stop. If these behaviors were good and wholesome, they would be given hallowed status for adults in most societies.
I find it sad that Americans continue to put up with this crap. Every week it is someone new and people are in the news and on the net saying how wrong it is. However what are you doing about it? You talk about your rights and freedoms however when was the last time you did something about it? Oh I am suing the other party ... blah blah blah. Odd if someone touched my child, I think suing them would be last on the list.
Linux: For those able to think out side of a window
end the Prohibition.
Kerry Wilson, the (still employed) Assistant Principal:
Room: SMS_Office
Phone: 928-348-7040 ext. 4706
E-Mail: KWilson@saffordusd.k12.az.us
The Safford School District's School Board:
734 W. 11th St.
Safford, AZ 85546
Phone: 928-348-7000 ext. 7701
Fax: 928-348-7001
gcurtis@SaffordUSD.k12.az.us
FTFA:
"Her assertion should not be misread to infer that she never broke school rules," the district said of Ms. Redding in a brief, "only that she was never caught."
I say sue the bastards into the ground...
1) School Staff are NOT Law Enforcement Officers and do not have the right to search and seizure at the same levels as a cop.
2) On the flip side the 13 year old girl could have reasonably told them to 'fuck off' and left. If they tried to stop her then they would be dealing with harassment and assault charges.
3) Where are the child molestation, sexual interference, etc... charges? What they subjected the girl was tantamount to rape.
Long story short, even Cops need a fairly high bar in order to require a strip search of a suspect that is a legal adult. What these School Staff had was far less, basically relying on hearsay from another student to basically strip search, humiliate and molest a 13 year old girl. Clearly the Supreme Court should bitchslap these school staff and the school and the school board as a result of this outright stupidity.
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
+2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
Uh, hello.
I'm an adult.
Adults are every bit as horrible as children, they're just better at pretending they aren't doing anything wrong.
I agree that our society is prone to hysteria about sex-offenders. However, if you think that's a basis for letting these administrators off the hook then you are entirely missing the point:
Situation 1: A school administrator strip-searches a 13 year old honor student upon the flimsiest pretext. The student is forced to show her vagina and spread her legs.
Outcome: The defiant school district defends its administrators all the way to the Supreme Court. School officials and prosecutors solemnly testify about the incalculable harm created by drugs and the necessity of a zero-tolerance policy.
Situation 2: A 13 year old girl uses her cell phone to take a scandalous photo of herself and sends it to her boyfriend. The school discovers this after confiscating the boy's cellphone when it rings in class.
Outcome: Both kids are criminally prosecuted for trafficking child pornography. School officials and prosecutors solemnly testify about the incalculable harm created by 'sexting' and the necessity of a zero-tolerance policy.
Obviously the real issue is not the sanctity of our children's bodies. The real issue is that some of our school administrators are using every possible pretext to expand and consolidate their power over students. By crassly exploiting the "think of the children" sentiment, schools institute ever more invasive and authoritarian policies. We are turning our schools into a police state. Instead of teaching our kids how to be responsible citizens, we are priming them for a totalitarian society.
don't think that would happen on a US beach, would it?
Nah, americans dont go to the beach much, because greenpeace keep coming along and wetting them down, then try to roll them back into the water....
THE ABOVE IS THE BEST SLASHDOT QUOTE I EVER SAW
Do you have a source for this? (Jeremiah Wright sermons don't count.)
First off I think the school officials should be charged as pedophiles, the girl was 13. Second, If they really needed to know if she had pills you call the police and allow them to find out.
> And, if children are citizens, what is the excuse of running schools with a level of oppression more appropriate of POW camps? Or making a child do something they are not ready or willing to?
Many children and not ready or willing to behave in class, to speak at anything less than a shout, to quit kicking the seat in front of them, to look both ways before crossing the street etc. Kids must be forced to do some things, but I won't argue that strip searches are COMPLETELY out of line. Forcing others to disrobe is only to be done after solid evidence of something hidden is found. (After you set off a metal detector and refuse to let the lump strapped to your leg be examined.)
> Many parents resort to spanking their child to give them a lesson.
Many feel doing so is a responsibility. (Spare the rod / spoil the child)
While it may seem obvious that what's meant is if you don't discipline a child it will become spoiled (the rod being the discipline of the day) too many take too much literally, not thinking of when something should be interpreted vs taken at absolute face value.
Also, the word "resort" above is questionable. Opinions range from "you may NEVER give even a slight smack" to "you can smack, but not hard enough to leave a mark" to "anything that doesn't do permanent damage is ok". Those who believe in spanking do so by default, "resort"ing to other methods only when needed.
> When was the last time your boss spanked you or grounded you for not meeting the project deadline?
My boss has a far worse punishment... firing. Wondering where your next meal is coming from makes being sore for a day seem like nothing. Also, a child is not seen a mature enough to behave just based on being told to do something. If your bosses say so isn't enough to get you to quit yapping on your cell for hours, you're not mature enough to have the job. As for the deadline, whose fault is it? His (ANY punishment is out of line) or yours? (Replace you with someone willing to do what it takes.)
> Our culture promotes treating children as property,
Inherited from way back. This isn't something we've fallen back into, it's something we never left.
We also inherited piercings and tattoos. Abuse our kids BEG for. (And find ways of getting if it's denied them.)
> Physical abuse is still widely accepted and even recommended.
What is physical abuse?
Is any inflicting of pain, period, for any reason abuse?
Is it abuse only when the pain serves no purpose or exceeds the severity of what the child did wrong?
> The right to privacy, the right to eat when and however much you
want, the right to sleep when you are sleepy and use the bathroom when you are ready,
are taken away from you when you are a child.
As a baby, this is to be expected. As children grow older and can take care of themselves more and more, this should be weaned off. As for the right to privacy though, consider drugs, alcohol and cigarettes. Which is more damaging, searching the child's room (after you've smelled weed on them) or letting them remain a junky and eventually be unable to pass a drug test to get a job? For the bathroom... 100%, LET THE KID GO. Failing to do so will only lead to medical problems. I can see limiting sleep AT CERTAIN TIMES. A teenager who wants to stay up until 5am and sleep till noon every day has to be knocked back onto societies schedule (until they graduate and take a night job somewhere). Depriving the child of enough sleep is another matter. Eating enough... there's some kids who don't have enough to eat, and others obese for their age that need outside discipline since they lack any themselves. This should be taken on a case by case basis. No child should be without enough food to be healthy, but there must be limits.
> Strip searching a 13-year old girl is just a symptom of tour collective habitual disrespect for children's core dignity.
Read up on the misadventures of the TSA. The same thing is happening to adults.
"Considering the severity..." of having moderately concentrated *ibuprofen*?
Jesus Christ on a crutch... someone needs to whack those people with a clue stick.
cant take any report from a pizza guy - http://freshmeat.net/users/tsarkon
"You can kill the revolutionary, but you can't kill the revolution."-- Fred Hampton
Are you still so frenzied that you can't see?
Observer: "The crazy guy heard the little boy flipped him off, and the crazy guy responded by knifing the little boy."
Mob: "YOU MUST DIE FOR SUPPORTING THE CRAZY GUY!"
Bunch of goddamned snarling dogs in here. The lot of you need rolled newspapers.
"Do we really want to encourage cases," Professor Arum asked, "where students and parents are seeking monetary damages against educators in such school-specific matters where reasonable people can disagree about what is appropriate under the circumstances?"
Absolutely cases should be encouraged so that grounds can be established for what is and what isn't proper behaviour for school administrators.
Granted, court cases cost money, but if schools and their administrators were reasonable and justified in their searches and won such cases, then future court cases based on similar circumstances would be thrown out or settled quickly based on prior history.
If the court is afraid of the number of potential court cases being filed, then they have (indirectly) admitted that they have failed in being the balance between government, laws, and the people.
Off with your pants! You are hiding a Karma Whore down there somewhere! Hell, off with my pants too!
Until this story got out, I didn't even know it was legal for a school to perform a strip search.
Check a locker, check a bag... OK.. I suppose.
Tell my kid to take her clothes off? WTF?
I don't have any kids, but if I did, they'd be home schooled if I couldn't get a sworn written statement by the principle and her teacher for that year that this invasive 'protection' was not condoned by that school.
I do have two very young nieces. I think I'll be having a chat with their teacher and principle once they reach an age that they can attend school.
Morse v. Frederick does not allow administrators to restrict student's free speech rights in any significant way. Scalia* and Kennedy both ruled that he could only be punished because he did not have anything to say, and by his own admission, was trying to be disruptive.
Had he been punished for a 'legalize weed' sign, the ruling would have been 5 to 4 in his favor.
*I can't believe I just admitted to agreeing with Scalia, I need a shower.
Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
I think you've got it backwards; it's the 12-year-olds (and younger) acting like the 30-year-old parents, only they aren't as refined so it's easy to see their game. You give adults way too much credit. If you gave children more credit, you wouldn't walk all over their rights all the time, and they would be able to develop into full human beings, not the stunted-growth adults that most become. By snap-judging their behavior and assuming it has nothing to do with how adults treat them, you never understand the real cause.
Its easy to say the 'correct' thing, but harder to actually do it. Unless you actually did say 'no' to a strip-search when you were 13 or so, then you cannot really say for certian what you would have done. Its my belief from my personal experiences (altho, nothing as bad a strip search, nore often enough to really be a expert), that one cannot truely appreciate the word 'no' until after something bad/humiliating happens, and they say 'never again'.
Kids, especially those in the school system, are mostly sheltered. Lots of them do not have the experience to know when to say 'no', and instead have the experience that says 'do what the adults say, they are always right'. Its no wonder that the kids would concent to such things, even if they said 'no', it would probably come out as 'well... ummm, my parents said to say no'. Without anyone else there to back them up, they will most certianly fold: all the authority figures that are present are saying 'concent', maybe even saying 'concent or go to jail', or 'concent or well tell on you', or other such threats that would work on a kid. Peer presure, for lack of a better word.
And to the GP who suggests the kid leave school: I dont know where you live, but around here, if a kid tried to leave school grounds without permission, they would be forcibly taken back into school grounds, or the police would go find them, or somesuch. "for their protection" no doubt. Most policies have the falal flaw that they assume kids know nothing and cannot take care of themselfs without a adult present, and that school officials must always be correct and can never fail or do any wrong.
"Do we really want to encourage cases," Professor Arum asked, "where students and parents are seeking monetary damages against educators in such school-specific matters where reasonable people can disagree about what is appropriate under the circumstances?"
Can someone explain to me why in every controversial case such as this, there's always a guy suggesting caution and complaining about setting precedents? I know nothing of law. How is it that justice can't be served without it's judgement affecting other much lesser offenses? It just stinks of a strawman argument. But why defend such a despicable act?
Don't forget this one:
Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw said, "It does not require a constitutional scholar to conclude that a nude search of a 13-year-old child is an invasion of constitutional rights."
"More than that," Judge Wardlaw added, "it is a violation of any known principle of human dignity."
If only there were more Judge Kim McClane Wardlaw's around. Also, that's a pretty badass name.
Eivind.
Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
What a dim-witted retard. Childhood is the stage humans go through before they become adults. While a person is a child, he is under the care and responsibility of his parents. His parents' job is to raise him to be responsible and mature. Most children need their asses beat every once in a while in order to learn that what they just did was wrong and never to do that again. Yes, corporal punishment works, and it works well. Jesus, nobody is advocating beating a child til his ass is black and blue, or anything close to that. The people that don't get their asses beat as kids generally turn out to be the kind of adults who get their faces smashed into the concrete for being a douchebag/smart ass to the wrong person. The difference is, kids are a lot more likely to learn from their ass whoopin, whereas the douchebag adult is old and set in his ways.
Your logic doesn't even make any sense, anyhow. So since you think children are the same as adults, and should have full adult rights, do you also agree that a 5 year old ought to have a right to leave his parents and live on his own? If you do, then you're stupid. If not, then where do you draw the line? You're just another granola-eating hippy who is scared by the idea of a kid being subjected to corporal punishment. Stop advocating shitty parenting, you fucking idiot. You are directly contributing to the destruction of all that's good and well in our society.
I'm a male high school teacher in Australia, and if it ever got to the point where somebody told me to strip-search a student like that, it'd be "May I have a 'Notice to Quit' Form please?". I'm also very concerned about the fact that other teachers didn't speak up against it when it happened. Aside from the mental anguish this would cause any young child, how could anyone in the modern education system, in America, land of the no-pay-lawsuit no less, not be concerned about the legal ramifications?
B-O-R-I-N-G
Assistant Principal Kerry Wilson: KWilson@saffordusd.k12.az.us
And you know what prescriptionstrength means ?
- 600mg vs 400mg per dosis (if you take nonpresc. strength 1 1/2 pills do the same)
And well it is a drug, but we all know that girls during menstruation are likely to have
pain in their belly area and migrane or heavy headache as well.
Is there no right for the girl to attend the school painfree ?
The names of these people are known and should be published at every mentioning of this incident. From this article, we know the school administrator's name is Kerry Wilson. I think that the names of the "female administrative assistant" and the "school nurse" should be published as well, in every mentioning of this incident.
Since it doesn't seem like the courts are going to give any justice to this matter, then perhaps making sure that people know who they're dealing with when they think of sending their kids to schools where these people work might help make things clearer to the so-called school district when the school empties of children because parents want nothing to do with these people.
Would the school officials have used force if the student refused?
What if the student used force against the school officials to avoid the unwarranted search?
What if the school officials had search 300 girls instead of just one? How many would still see this as reasonable?
If carrying ibuprofen is such a dangerous drug that it requires a strip search, shouldn't the police be called in the first place? It scares me mostly that the school can do this kind of investigation without having to call the authorities.
In case a student was suspected of carrying an illegal drug (no matter which drug), the police should have been informed. In this case the drug she was suspected of carrying was not illegal (it required a prescription still but that doesn't make it illegal in itself). She should have been questioned first at the very least.
The scariest part in this matter is for me that school authorities apparently have (or at least think they have) this kind of investigative powers. They may have certain powers, after all they have a bunch of school children to look after, but this is definitely going to far. This are powers of a kind that belong in the hands of the police only. Next thing you know is that teachers are allowed to carry weapons as a way to help them keep/restore order.
The accusation was that she had prescription-strength ibuprofen, which is not OTC medication.
There's just so many things going wrong here.
You should be perfectly well allowed to take legal drugs on school, whether OTC or prescription (assuming you have the prescription). I can see the case for banning alcohol since it makes students less able to be Good Students when consumed in the intended way, but other than that...
But failing a basic sanity check, I assume the school also bans medication for asthma and allergies. That'd be the "logical" (meaning consistent with displayed insanity) thing to do, right?
Did the school ask (1) "Do you have the pills?"; and (2) "Do you lack a prescription for prescription-required medication?" before strip-searching her? The article doesn't say anything about her having or not having a prescription, but the school probably didn't ask:
Ms. Redding said she was never asked if she had pills with her before she was searched. Mr. Wolf, her lawyer, said that was unsurprising.
I'm shocked and appalled. At my boarding school (back then) and my university (now), the personnel would give the students OTC pain-killers if we asked for them; that is, unless you asked ~daily, because they suspected you of developing an unhealthy addiction.
That's a policy I can support.
Years of psychological research have told us something that our culture finds counter-intuitive: Parents actually have no effect over their kids, aside from genetically. At least, not more than any stranger would.
So, after all, spanking your child every day is just as psychologically damaging as a stranger beating the crap out of them every day.
This is something I learned a long time ago. As a parent, you really can't do anything but be loving and supportive to your kids, everything else just won't work. You can't "Raise them up right" and "Teach them the value of hard work."
All you can do is be a good person yourself, and pray they learn by example.
"The antebellum Dredd Scott decision said you can't make blacks citizens because then we'd have to let them have guns -- an implicit acknowledgment that arms are useful for resisting tyranny"
Well, talk about selective quoting, let's read the whole quote:
"It would give to persons of the negro race, ...the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ...the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."
It also mentions free speech, freedom of movement, and freedom to hold arms [which, ironically goes against people who claim the 2nd amendment refers to militias, it does not]. In other words, they were simply listing the kinds of freedoms that a free man at the time might expect. They didn't single out firearms as something special.
"And, seriously now, would you burn a cross on the front yard of a house with man holding his shotgun on you?"
Well no. But consider that it was only after blacks had the right to bear arms that the Klan started burning crosses on the front yards of people. The Klan started in 1865: *after the civil war*. So you see what an absurd statement you're making.
Seriously, you seem to have made up history in your head and then don't even do basic research to see if your theory of history is correct. Stop listening to crazy people and do your own research.
If the "she's young, so it's not damaging" were the case, then kiddie porn wouldn't exist as a law on the books to prosecute for: some of those kiddies are MUCH younger than 13!
So legal age for sex is 16 or 18, if 13 is too young for KP to be an effect, then that must be at least 15 for the minimum age, so you have maybe 15-18 year old is the ONLY ages where pictures of naked girls is illegal to have.
Cool.
I bet Garry Glitter wants to move to the US now...
Every paragraph should have ended with "By the way, this was over *ibuprofen*. What the fuck were these people thinking?" The very premise of the search was beyond moronic.
Property is theft.
...is, that by pursuing this to the supreme court, she has spent her formative teenage years enmeshed in this incident. Would it not have been better for her to have been helped to get over it and get on with her life? Her parents were rightly outraged, but they may have pursued the wrong course of action here. This is yet another argument for keeping schools under the control of local school boards. That would have made it easy to assure that the adults involved lost their jobs. Then everyone else could have quietly gotten on with their lives.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
What is happening is that special interest groups are normalizing this aggressive and authoritarian policy
Are "special interests" the new name for communists and terrorists? What are you talking about?
Property is theft.
It's a rather Queen Victoria point of view that women won't get aroused at the sight of another female, isn't it.
in light of the 2006 wave of young teenage girls smuggling prescription-strength OTC pain killers in their panties.
Property is theft.
in light of the 2006 wave of young teenage girls smuggling prescription-strength OTC painkillers in their panties.
Property is theft.
Funny thing is - these people are arguing that the strip search was ok.
Yet if they had taken a picture of it, they would each spend 500 years in the slammer for posession of child porn.
Wierd how that doesn't match, don't you think? Having a picture of a half-naked girl carries a higher sentence than forcing her to strip?
And you call that a legal system?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I know the USA has a lot more people than Australia so there's a lot more things going on fighting for national headlines and that you all went crazy nuts and lost the plot more than we did after September 11, 2001 but why this wasn't national news right after it happened and the school people responsible immediately charged and they, along with anyone supporting their actions sacked, I do not know. Has the USA really fallen so far that something as serious yet trivial as this is before your highest court five years after the fact? No wonder the rest of the world laughs in the USA's face now when it spouts off being "the beacon of freedom and democracy".
If the same thing happened here in Australia it would be national news within a few days, and if the school people responsible weren't already murdered/beaten to within an inch of their lives by the father and his mates, they would be sacked and arrested.
God knows if the same thing had happened to me the principal would have have been grateful if all he got was his house being burnt down with him and his family in it.
"Do we really want to encourage cases," Professor Arum asked, "where students and parents are seeking monetary damages against educators in such school-specific matters where reasonable people can disagree about what is appropriate under the circumstances?"
Y'see, in my opinion this sort of statement, while having some validity, has no place in court. He has a point by saying that creating a precedent for such cases could cause trouble if people start suing for money, but that shouldn't stand in the way of how this case is handled.
I realize this happens a lot, but if your worrying about possible future cases influences how you handle a current one, there's something wrong with how you conceive justice. Perhaps the system should change, but the fear of creating a precedent should not have an influence on the outcome of individual cases.
"You're a thought criminal!"
Send your spendthrift head of state this
Pain is an excellent behavioral adjuster. Do not let emotion stain your intellect, henceforth.
I likely wouldn't have waited for lawyers. I would have gone straight to the local newspapers and television stations to bring public shame on the school. But if it were males strip searching my daughter, I first would have gone to jail for beating them to a fucking pulp for touching my daughter.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
Keep in mind that the search was done by two female employees, a secretary and the school nurse, at the behest of the assistant principle, who was male. I believe what we are looking at here is a clear, real life example of a Milgram experiment.
Two minor employees followed the orders an authority figure, probably against their personal conscience. One, the secretary, was certainly untrained at what she was doing. The other, the nurse, was probably untrained as well.
You are being too harsh. The two women who conducted the search are responsible for their actions, but the fact is they are probably also victims here. If you read the description of the search, they did not ask here to fully remove all her clothing, instead adopting half measures, which goes back to the probable lack of training. This leads me to believe that these women did feel guilty about what they were doing and this emerged through half measures in which their orders were fully followed, but the victim was not subjected to a "complete" strip search.
It's a flimsy excuse, but it does I think show reluctance on the part of the searchers. Whatever about the nurse, what was the secretary doing there? She probably came in that day to type letters and answer phone calls. What was she doing in that room?
This is a clear example of the kind of situation Milgram was trying to understand. How willing are people to obey unconscionable orders? The important lesson here for anyone who finds themselves in such a situation is; When you go to work, do not leave your personal conscience and judgment, and your responsibility at the door.
May the Maths Be with you!
Being selfish means you do not care about other people or their feelings, or the effect of your actions upon them.
But it is not that two year olds do not care about other people. It is that they are unable to care about other people. When Timmy takes Bobby's chocolate, it is not that he did so without regard to Bobby's feelings, only that he did so with regard only to his own feelings. Timmy is not capable of fully grasping the effects of taking the chocolate will have on Bobby (Bobby will cry). He can only grasp the effects that not taking the chocolate will have on Timmy (Timmy will cry). Keep in mind I'm talking about two year olds.
The ability to empathise with others is a skill that two year olds have not yet learned, just as they have not yet learned to speak or coordinate themselves properly. As time goes by, they gain this skill. If Timmy then chooses to take Bobby's chocolate, in spite of the fact that he knows and understands the effect it will have (Bobby will cry), then Timmy is can be said to act selfishly.
Some people never learn to empathise, but these people are very small subset(psychopaths), comparable to those who never learn to talk, or walk. The vast majority of people can empathise, but of course a sizable fraction of them choose to be selfish anyway.
May the Maths Be with you!
So, just to get this straight, if you are a teacher in the US and you have 'reason' to suspect, you can order a 13 year old girl to strip to her underwear?
So that is why there are so many pedophiles in the USA! Probably already in the job queue applying to be teachers after this story came out.
""Procrastination is the thief of time," MLK Jr."
That cheating nigger MLK didnt write or come up with any sayings. He stole all that shit like most niggers do. Niggers have stealing shit in their black blooded black minds with their blackened souls.
Fucking nigger plagiarist.
Ever since the Kelso verdict I've come to the conclusion that the Supreme Court is just another tool of the power structure - of course they're going to side with the government, they're signing their paychecks and funding their pensions! Sure, on paper they're on the court for life, but I bet in reality significant pressure can be brought to bear on a justice who makes a number of "incorrect" decisions. What is really needed is a court made up of a combination of government and private members to decide cases where governmental restrictions clash with civil liberties. I don't know what you do in the case of a tie, though. Take a Mulligan?
Jealously hoarding mod points since 2007.
I find it scary that school authorities will take the word of a child caught in th eact breaking the rules and automatically assume that a kid accusing others is necessarily telling the truth. It wasn't me who made all those Tsarkon Rep posts on slashdot sir I swear! Go strip search Anonymous Coward!!!
With zero tolerance policies enforcers throw away their powers of reasoning. A policy cannot be used to deny people their basic rights.
Plus in this case it was really really stupid and it seems to really have harmed the girl significantly. She was off school for months and eventually transfered.
Surprised that with all the outrage on here, exactly none is directly where it ought to be, at the school system itself. If you send your children to a prison society, this is what will happen to them. No surprise there. Not for this reason specifically, but for many many many others, my son has never seen the inside of a school building, and won't until college.
only one everything
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You're not a father, are you?
No, you're an Anonymous Coward.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
Why the sexism? Why is it reasonable to strip search a boy but not a girl?
I find being offended by me offensive.
It would have been completely reasonable for the girl to beat to death anyone who tried to force her to strip.
I don't care what the circumstances are. If an adult tries to force a girl to strip, that's rape. Rape victims are free to take any measures necessary to protect themselves, as far as I am concerned
Full agreement there. If the school thinks that strongly that the student may have drugs or some other "disallowed" item on them, they need to hand it over to the police. Schools are not the DEA and students aren't hardened criminals.
The school has no business strip searching people period. Regardless of the alleged infraction.
I injected insulin on school grounds daily through high school. Not a damn thing that the school could have done about it. If the school thinks is a problem, hold the student in an administrators office and call their parents.
Instead of trying to always be pinning the tail on the proverbial donkey, they should come up with ways to interact with the kids so the kids might start trusting them more, and try to open up more about stuff instead of taking pills....even if it was ibuprofen.
Secondly what is up with this, Ibuprofen, are u kidding me, that's for headaches, its not crack....so why are they even trying to strip search in the first place???
I would so love to hear the judge slap a big fine for them and set a precedent for this type of behavior. The teacher HAS to be smarter in today's world, we are dealing with problem kids with guns and drugs and sex earlier every year.
Instead, make an effort to improve your curriculum, not try to weed out kids that are bad apples. Those apples are not permanently rotten, just remember that, they deserve a chance to evolve into something better too.
God this makes me mad.....hulk......smash.....
See, in French we have two words:
So if a French school were to have a 'zero drogue' policy, there's no way someone carrying a mere 'medicament' would be in trouble. It's only if that 'medicament' was also a 'drug', like morphine, that they would be in trouble.
So the proper solution is obvious: fix the English language to distinguish the two meanings ;-).
they are the areas most likely to have people unable to competently apply judgment
Actually, while the above is often true I'd say that they're most often applied in areas where the victims of a "zero tolerance" policy are least likely to resist or fight back.
The current legal situation of right-invasion in US schools seems to support that. It also ingrains a "no matter how dumb, corrupt, or oppressive it seems, don't fight the system" mentality on today's youth.
Seems to me that even a parent/family-member forcing a 13-year-old girl to strip for them - especially down to the point of revealing genitalia - would be looking at possible criminal child-abuse, exploitation, or other such charges. Why not school staff?
One thing I haven't quite figured out yet. This seems to be a civil suit against the school by the parents? Did anyone ever file a criminal suit? I would have called the cops and told them that several staff members forced my 13-yr-old daughter into a back room and forced her to strip for them...
For hundreds of years up until the early 1900s education was more of a physical process than an intellectual one. The public school system has and always will be used as an instrument of conformity to create compliant citizens.
Children have been seen as sub-human property of the state while left in their care. With that entrenched idea, schools think they can pretty much do as they please. The Constitution does not apply to them. Don't like it? Amend the Constitution to include them, and see where it gets us.
We now have a society where parents can't be parents, schools (soon) won't be parents, and all the kids will grow up to be monsters.
Our wonderful supreme court will fail to make the right decision. I am sure that they will rule in favor of the school.
I have a 9 yr old son and if this ever happened to him I would beat both of them and I dont care if they are women. I would take the consequences of my actions to avenge the wrong done to him.
What gets me is this: "the scope of the 1985 case was not well established at the time of the 2003 search" There shouldn't be a lawsuit because the issues involved are similar to a case that was decided ALMOST 20 YEARS PREVIOUSLY??
Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
Thats a fault of usa...
Im sure other countries do better, tho if there are bullies around, take solace to know that all bullies either eventually turn to corporate criminals like madof, or OD on heroin, or end up in jail for life eventually.
Ha Ha, we all laugh at bullies, because they die young, ha ha.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Never has the Six-Lesson Schoolteacher essay seems more relevant... http://www.cantrip.org/gatto.html This is about enforcing and strengthening the part where people learn that they have no rights and no privacy.
TC - My Photos..
No, the practical reason for the 2nd Amendment was the same as the practical reason for the other 9 amendments it accompanied--to gather the popular support needed to get the Constitution ratified by the states. The Federalists reluctantly tacked on these amendments as a necessary assurance that the new, more powerful, federal government would not become as heavy-handed and oppressive as the British government. The 2nd Amendment was one of the most interesting of the bunch--both a promise that gun confiscation would not be permitted (the British had frequently done this) and a subtle (if unwritten) acknowledgment that the people would still have the power and means to resist and overthrow the new government should it become too oppressive. This subtle acknowledgment wouldn't last long beyond ratification, however. Once the Federalists got their new government, one of their first acts was to start imposing British-style taxes. And when the people of western Pennsylvania rebelled against the whiskey tax, the new government quickly suppressed their resistance in what was to become known as the Whiskey Rebellion (ironically the army that suppressed them was led by the father of Robert E. Lee, who would later help lead the most major U.S. rebellion to date).
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
It wouldn't matter if she had an ounce of coke up her vag, it's illegal for a school official to strip-search a child. If you think she has drugs, you call the cops & let them deal with it.
There is a war going on for your mind.
And what's more, raising kids as if they had no rights results in a future population of adults that is conditioned to authoritarianism and doesn't care about their rights.
Finally, Pedobear's long hours of training to join the DEA has paid off!
I can't think of any reason a strip search could ever be justified by a school, regardless of what the child may be concealing. Let's say it's not just ibuprofen, let's say it's crystal meth. Then you call the police. If you are worried about the child's immediate safety, you supervise her, and don't let them out of your sight. But under no circumstances do you have the right to strip-search her. Even if you see her hide a gun in her underwear as she walks into the school, you have no right to take it out. You restrain her until someone with the authority to perform a strip-search comes.
HOWEVER, in a situation where you see with your own eyes that she has hidden a gun in her underwear, then fair enough, I would be prepared to say "OK, so you were in the wrong, but it's a reasonable mistake to make".
On a slightly different tack now, I can believe easily that a 13 year old girl trying to conceal contraband would put it down her pants. The fact that this wasn't the case is a relatively moot point here, all I'm saying is that if they had reasonable grounds to suspect she had contraband, they had reasonable grounds to suspect it was hidden in her pants. Doesn't mean that they have the right to go and find out. I have reasonable grounds to believe that my neighbour smokes weed (I smell it every now and then). Does that give me the right to break into his house, and go hunting around for his stash? No.
Assistant principal at a school != Policeman. School nurse != Policeman. They don't have the same rights, should know that, and there should be no allowances made for their ignorance (assuming they were not malicious). Custodial sentences, please.
We need to educate our children about their rights under the Constitution.
Granted, this is a 4th Amendment issue not a 5th, but if this girl had asserted her right to have an attorney present during questioning, the clearly illegal strip search might not have happened. Any competent attorney would have insisted on a warrant, at which point the school might have backed off.
My kids have been told repeatedly that if school officials begin any serious disciplinary interrogation they are supposed to say "I need to speak to my parents and my attorney before answering any questions." Hopefully, they will have presence of mind to do so and the balls to insist on asserting their rights despite the inevitable pressure they will experience because of it.
"My son sometimes screams his brains out when I change his diaper. It still needs to be done."
Of course, and you do it. Punishing your son for it would be excessive.
My point wasn't anything about punishing. It was about the fact that I'm forcing him to do something that, to an adult, would be a humiliating, cold, unpleasant deprivation of privacy (and a diaper, which perhaps he wanted). My point was just that, obviously, there has to be some leeway for parents in terms of forcing their children to do things. My son cannot make the decision that he wants his diaper changed, however bad it needs to be done.
There will be many things like this that a child can take responsibility for as they grow up, but that will need to be done gradually.
The child running towards the campfire may be handled without violence. It is possible.
Nonviolent parenting != permissive parenting.
Possible, definitely. It's just sometimes the margin of error is low, and sometimes even good, very well-meaning parents do not have an effective teaching relationship with their children. By this I mean they're not able to communicate the importance of certain things - they say "don't go to the fire" and it becomes a game. The consequences of this failure to communicate can be very dire - outweighing, to my mind, the surely traumatic experience of having your parent seem to attack you (and it is only seem, as spanking should never be actually painful).
My kid isn't old enough to do much - but I worry about this myself. I've tried to teach young children before, and had real problems - kids somehow sense something that makes them think they can walk over me (which they then do). I've tried to take different attitudes and postures and learn to be better at this (including by watching some of my family and friends who are much better at this), but it's not an easy skill to improve.
Anyways, I empathize with parents who are dealing with longstanding teaching problems that they aren't able to manage. That said, I don't have sympathy for someone who spanks often, or to punish harmless behaviors (throwing food, yelling, or fighting with other kids). These are things that you can try again on teaching until you get it right. If you fail to communicate that throwing food is bad, it doesn't matter.
All I'm saying is that I don't think we can say "spanking is never acceptable" or "yelling at your kids is never acceptable". Perhaps the need for these things is symptomatic of earlier mistakes, but people make mistakes.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
You're an idiot. No need to qualify it, you prove it by your own statements.
Being among those who were spanked by a kid, I can tell you that it taught me that lying is the only defence.
If you lie, you don't get spanked. Unless aren't good enough at lying and hiding whatever you did. In that case you need to get better at lying.
I did not turn out OK. Yet, I turned out better than a lot of people, who still seem to believe that spanking children is ok, even though they were victims themselves. But at some point, something changed in my life, that turned things upside down, and I no longer see violence as a solution. I believe the change came when I went to business school, and suddenly met "adults" of my own age (or a little older), and saw that everyone was nice to each other. Except me, it took me a couple of weeks to figure out this "being nice" thing. Actually it took much longer, a couple of weeks only got me to "neutral".
Yet, I still have a fear of authorities, I panic when the phone rings, because it might be my boss, and once in a while I wake up sweating from a nightmare involving me trying to escape from my parents.
In my viewpoint, based on my relatively bad childhood experiences, the majority of teachers and principals become such not because they love teaching or children, but because they either want the easy money and long summer holiday or have a sadomasochistic need to dominate and control others. Children represent one of the easiest groups to dominate.
Think - all your best teachers were the probably the opposite of disciplinarian - they maintained order through other means, perhaps through respect, but most likely by treating you like a dignified human being. The majority of your teachers were probably disciplinarian, they maintained order through fear, threat of harm or violence. To them, treating you with respect and dignity means showing weakness and, well, they don't want you to know they're fundamentally weak.
For these people, children have no rights and are only slightly different than animals (the other group that's easy to dominate). They probably started out by abusing animals.
From the article I don't get the impression the student was being treated with respect and dignity.
Where are the parents of other children at this school on this one ?
a mass protest should surely have these clowns removed from their jobs.
Nullius in verba
There was a situation earlier this year (last last?) where a high school girl was strip searched because she was breaking school rules using a cell phone in class and decided to get away with it by hiding the phone in her poonani.
I don't even want to begin getting into whether that is right or not BUT to relate to this case:
They called in the full set of authorities and *they* performed the search.
Teachers are not our parents and they are not the police. They are there to teach us and I know have to deal with way more crap than they should but that still does not give them the right to violate the children's own.
Is it just me that noticed that it took six years for this case to get through the court system. Proper and timely justice it isn't. When will they get around to doing something about it? Maybe when the girl's kids are strip-searched.
This is completely insane. The last similar story we read, where a student was refusing to cooperate with a teacher and wound up arrested, I was sort of on the fence; but in this case, it's clear to me; a crime was committed, and it was committed by the school, not the student. If I were the parent, I don't know how I'd restrain myself from beating the living daylights out of those teachers.
You guys are right - "Zero Tolerance" is a moronic catch-phrase and an even more idiotic policy, as recent history has shown. They're concerned over prescription strength Ibuprofen? How retarded can they get?
If the school is going to take it's "Zero inTelligence" - I mean, "Zero Tolerance" policy so seriously, then nearly every teacher in that school should be arrested for violating it - I'll bet just about everyone of them drink a morning cup of coffee, and that contains the drug caffeine. Those few who also smoke are using nicotine too, a double offense. I'd like to see strip searches of them. Then again, scratch that, my eyes!!
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
What's disturbing is how normal "one size fits all" policies are becoming in this country. Anytime you let a large bureaucracy dictate minute details of a policy, this kind of dislocation is a common result. In a system where the best and brightest are well rewarded for their efforts, government jobs tend to be filled by the leftovers -- people who are not employable based on their merits. Unfortunately, "what's left" are often automatons who need every detail of their jobs scripted for them. Do not deviate from script. Do not make waves. Retire with nice pension.
A sound organization hires executors who have the capability to exercise judgment, and empowers them to do just that. Otherwise you strip-search middle school students on suspicion of carrying Advil.
Even if they did, I don't think they had reasonable suspicion that there were prescription-strength ibuprofen pills under her undergarments. I think that is the key point. Without that suspicion, they might have been allowed to search her locker or asked her to empty her pockets, but certainly not strip search over anything.
Also, I don't think that reasonable people can disagree over this case. We may have different reasons for saying it wasn't ok, but if one is to defend a strip search over ibuprofen where the risk to other kids is minimal even if she did have it AND it is not a controlled substance beyond requiring a prescription, AND there is no financial motive for smuggling (hence no reason to overly conceal having the medication), then you are not thinking through the issues of when a search is reasonable. If she was accused of smuggling meth in her bra, a properly done strip search might be reasonable, or at least reasonable people might be able to disagree. If she was accused of giving a prescription-strength NSAID to a classmate, it is unreasonable. The equivalent would be for police to get a search warrant for your HOUSE because they think incriminating evidence might be in your CAR.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
It's groups and individuals that belong to the neo-conservative christian right. I thought this would be obvious, seeing as how they are making themselves quite public. There is an example in the journal entry I submitted yesterday.
Children are also morons, and some look for ways to 'get away with it' even if 'technically correct'.
parent 'dont do this'
smart child 'what is stopping me?'
parent 'i am'
smart child 'i will do it when you are not looking'
parent 'i will ground you'
smart child 'where? in my room with my toys and video game systems? ok'
see how this works... I could go on for hours with the logic of a child.
Many children are different and act differently to different methods. A sharp crack on the butt and some will understand. Others you can do the same thing and *they will not care*. You need to work out what motivates the child. This also changes as the get older. For some it is merely the suggestion that you will take away their cell phone.
If I followed your reasoning to a extreme I would end up with Eric Cartman from south park.
Also what motivates an adult and what motivates a child are usually 2 different things. A child has very simple motivations (they are young and not that mature). They also tend to look at the here and now and not in 20 mins. An adult is motivated by not losing their job...
In the case at hand a strip search was conducted I would say one of a few things were going on. A pervo was in charge, or a overzealous principal/teacher (not uncommon), poor policy guidelines. I would say it is probably a combination and mostly the last. Could have been EASILY cleared up at the beginning of the year with a note or conference with the parents. 'please tell us about *ANY* prescriptions your children have, if we catch/suspect them with any prescriptions we do not know about we will send them home'. That would have cleared it up for all parties involved.
You would be a poor parent to let your child tell you how it is going to be run in your house. You are in charge. It is *YOUR* house. Knew one guy who spanked his one child but not the other. I asked him why. He was quite up front about it. He told me "I can hit the other one until my hand bleads and he will look me in the eye and say 'i dont care i am going to do it again'". The other one you just tap him and he understands not to do it EVER again. However the situation was reversed for the other punishments used. Taking away toys and movies. The one who could care less about being spanked would flip out with the idea of not being able to watch his tv shows. The other one could care less about it and would just find something else to do.
It is not about dignity or punishment. It is about giving those children the tools in which to function in society. Which would you rather be around? A bossy child who wigs out every time some little thing doesnt go their way (you know that annoying kid screaming their lungs out at the restaurant about not getting their free breadsticks fast enough)? Or a child who understands that things in life are earned and is polite?
the right to sleep when you are sleepy and use the bathroom when you are ready, are taken away from you when you are a child
And for good reason. Another guy I know used the methods you speak of. At the age of 6 the child finally had to stop using diapers. Yes 6 (typical age is 1-2). You can NOT reason with a child. Many are not reasonable. They are physically incapable of seeing someones elses point of view. Their logic is not the same as an adults. People seem to think they are. The kid in this case reasoned (quite correctly) that 'there is no reason to use the bathroom I have this underwear I can crap in'. Change it and problem solved mom and dad will buy me more.
I was also spanked as a child. But you know what? I deserved it. I was a TOTAL little prick. I would do things in stores and at home that are NOT acceptable. Quite literally my dad had to beat into me that there are consequences for my actions. I can be a bit stuborn, selfish, and rude, THAT is my nature.
Also to answer your orginal question of what rights do the children get? There are actually a few that do not apply to them (they have age limiters built in
You stole that entire speech from the gravelly-voiced meth head that hangs out behind the gas station kicking gravel and picking at himself.
Either that, or you're the meth head. Well, keep at it, brother. The South shall rise again! Why does your life suck? Black people are to blame!
If you get close enough to strip search a 13 year old suicide bomber then kudos to you. Usually they'll just blow themselves up and you along with them before they would let that happen.
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
+2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
Why the sexism? Why is it reasonable to strip search a boy but not a girl?
Unless they specifically want to be strip searched, then it is wrong in both cases. It would appear that boys prefer to be strip searched by female authority figures though. With girls it's just sexual harassment. I suppose it's the way people are socialized.
I know all too many children who simply follow the orders of adults. I also know too many children who never follow the orders of adults. A middle ground must be reached to teach kids that in some situations, you must refuse an adult. Some children are simply so passive that is unhealthy and/or dangerous.
If this victim would have been empowered (from her parents and/or from her education system) with the knowledge and confidence to prevent this, she would have been much better off.
I think THIS is the real issue at hand.
Of course, the events that transpired are indeed a crime and need to be handled by a court, but I'd like to see the outrage directed towards making sure children are taught not too so blindly obey and to fight for their human rights when necessary.
Let's prevent this from happening again with more than just a legal precedent.
I think you missed my point.
You said:
"3. There is nothing reasonable about strip searching a girl even if she did have a prescription for Ibuprofen"
Your statement limits the "nothing reasonable" to girls.
Why do you find it reasonable for boys to be strip searched and not girls?
I find being offended by me offensive.
It was a bit of sarcasm mate. It's bad in either case. I'm not aware that this is viewed differently in practice elsewhere. You certainly haven't given any examples.
It sounds overkill (strip search for a mobile) but if they called in the police, at least the school followed proper procedures.
It makes me also wonder in this case why the student let it come that far instead of just handing over the phone... notwithstanding that stuffing a phone down there is probably not very good for the phone. Crazy teenagers.
We now have a society where parents can't be parents, schools (soon) won't be parents, and all the kids will grow up to be monsters.
That meme is older than Jesus. It seems like every generation has the same un-original thing to say about the decline of the morality of our youth.
Yeah, when did it become illegal to fix a headache in school?
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
If you think guns are going to protect your civil liberties you are sadly mistaken.
Link to the kelso case?
"The school described the strip-search as 'not excessively intrusive in light of [the student's] age and sex and the nature of her suspected infraction."
So what's her sex got to do with it? Are they implying that they would have performed a more invasive search if it had been a male?
Because at least here in the US, precedent in law can be a big thing. If there's been a precedent set, it's often enough to go through with a case, no matter how absurd or how ridiculous. I don't know if it's a "well they did it before, so the decision isn't mine" mentality or what, but precedent is often taken into consideration in unusual situations (or at least I believe that's the case).
WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
Thank you, a sense of proportion about who is damaged is so often missing in these cases.
aaandre,
Your even dumber than you look if you think abuse and a swat on the bottom are the same thing. I abhor abuse and think anyone who hurts a child intentionally should be punished. That being said one swat on the bottom for misbehavior is not abuse. Thats the problem today to many people think in extreme's. To many parents will not punish there child in any form because "I wont' abuse my child" and prison population has risen exponentially since. So let me fix your statement for you.
Incorrect: "I was spanked as a kid and I know think that was abuse."
Correct: "I was spanked as a kid and I realize that doing something wrong has consquences.
My momma always said stupid is as stupid does.
You appear to think that children should be treated the same way as adults, e.g. children should not be spanked because adults are not. However, that is not appropriate at all.
I have a two-year-old son. When he hits someone else, I grab his hand and firmly say "no", and that is generally the end of it. As an adult, you call the police and file for assault. When my son starts howling, swinging his hands at people, or otherwise starts getting out of hand, I bodily pick him up and place him on the time-out couch, and physically prevent him from leaving until he is calm. Many of these actions are not illegal, and responding to them in an adult physically would be assault. Generally, there are many things you can (and should, for that matter) do to a child that you should never do to an adult.
Further, what a child understands as a consequence will not conform with that an adult understands. In the case of missing a project deadline, an adult could then have a monetary consequence, say no bonus, a smaller raise, or perhaps being fired. My two-year-old certainly wouldn't understand any of those. And for a reward, I would just love to see my boss try to grab me, toss me in the air, and then give me a hug and kiss.
The law itself recognizes that children are not adults. They can not sign contracts. They can't own property. They are expected to be restricted in many ways by their guardians, especially since the guardians are often legally responsible for their wards' actions.
Now comes the case of schools. Schools are a parent in absentia in many cases, and so gain a certain amount of privilege that another random institution would not have. For example, they can restrict the movement of children, e.g. not allowing them off campus or out of class, or prevent them from carrying pocketknives. At the same time they do not have every privilege that a parent has. To take your example, spanking is legal for parents, but not for a school official. And one reason they have these rights, sometimes even over the protests of the parents, is that truancy is illegal. Private schools exist, yes, but unless the parent can afford one, the parent is forced to abide by the school rules since attendance by the child is required.
In sum, I am simply saying that the issue has a lot more grey that you seem to know. I am not stating that spanking is good or bad, or whether the search was okay or not. Merely that kids are not adults, and they can, and should, be treated differently than adults. The question then is just where to draw the line.
I wouldn't only file a lawsuit, I would have filed sex crime related charges.
Don't Vote for Norm Dicks! http://www.nodicks2008.com Another nutless dirtbag that voted for the FISA bill!
Of course they have to forbid Ibuprofen. Ibuprofen is a gateway drug. It starts out like this: you get really bad menstrual cramps or are prone to migraines, so you start taking aspirin. Asprin doesn't work, so you try acetaminophen. That works for a while, but it's not enough and you need something stronger to keep away the pain. So, the next step is ibuprofen.
See, the problem with that is that ibuprofen is a gateway drug. Once you turn to ibuprofen, it's all over. You'll be popping 2-3 pills every time you get a headache or cramp, and the next thing you know, you'll end up addicted to the hard drugs like Midol. Don't get me started about my Midol addiction!
Now for the serious part of my post:
Are they for real? Why throw common sense out of the window? Why are aspirin. ibuprofen, Midol, claritin, and other non-narcotic, legal, over-the-counter medications forbidden from schools? In high school I had aspirin and ibuprofen with me. It was a non-issue. Plus, if I didn't have any with me and I got a migraine, I could get some from the school nurse or a teacher. There was no issue with it. They didn't even call home to get permission from my mommy and daddy. Back in the '80s, even public school teachers and administrators had the common sense to discern the difference between illegal narcotics or stimulants from safe, legal, over-the-counter medications that even a four-year-old can purchase over the counter.
I am so sick of the dumbing down of America and my fellow citizens sacrificing liberties in exchange for security theater and a nanny state. What's next: on the next episode of Homeland Security Theater is bottled water going to be banned from schools? That is EXACTLY what happened in Boston the other day. Because three students were drinking alcohol (it was either rum or vodka, I don't remember which) in a classroom and the idiotic teacher and principal did not do a thing about it, the superintendent decided the smart thing to do was to ban ALL beverages from the campus. The teacher and principal of that school still have their jobs and were not reprimanded. Instead, EVERYONE is punished because two douchebag faculty members let three moronic teenagers drink vodka in class. They couldn't punish the evildoers involved - no, of course not. They punish EVERYONE except the guilty parties.
Soviet Russia is looking better than what "progressives" here in America are trying to create. Sheesh!
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
rape: force (someone) to have sex against their will
And if the attempt is not successful, it is only attempted rape.
That said, an adult trying to force a girl to strip would generally be classed as sexual abuse, and physical abuse victims are free to take any measures necessary to protect themselves.
Most schools are extremely oppressive and violent. You are observing a natural reaction to that environment. Children adapt very well.
It is the adults' responsibility to maintain an emotional connection with the child. This requires time, attention and relatively healthy adults.
We still haven't learned how to efficiently deal with crowds of children, and somehow we are not interested in approaching the crowd part of the issue.
Why on earth do we think that raising a child in a prisoner camp type of environment is a good idea? And how did we conclude that the job is not important enough to give it more resources?
Nonviolent parenting != permissive parenting
Policies replace decision making and personal responsibility with scripted procedure.
Much easier for individuals averse to responsibility.
The Nazi's knew that 70 years ago. Today everybody knows it.
They were just doing their jobs. Who wrote the "zero tolerance" policy and who voted for it?
So when are the names of the secretary and the nurse going to be up on the AZ sex offender List website???
Wilson said he had good reason to suspect Ms. Redding. She and other students had been unusually rowdy at a school dance a couple of months before
So, a couple of thirteen year olds were acting silly at a party? There's a shock, no thirteen year old's ever done that before. And months later, this is "good reason" to assume one of them is in the black-market Advil trade?
But to be fair Wilson claims that he "thought they smelled alcohol" at that dance. I think this is an utter lie, but let's take him at his word:
Mr Wilson, you claim you personally saw inebriated behavior and smelled alcohol on some eighth-graders at an official school function. Your response to your alleged first-hand witnessing of this: nothing.
Months later, this time not based on what you saw, but on someone else's wild accusation, you think someone has Advil. Your response to that is to order her to be strip-searched. By, I might add, your secretary, someone who has nothing whatsoever to do with anything and doesn't even remotely have the job of enforcing school rules.
Kerry Wilson, what the hemorrhaging fuck is wrong with you?
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
If this was my daughter it might have escalated beyond fking asperin on the school grounds. These idiots (the upright folks at the school) should be tarred, feathered and ruhn out of town on a rail - the old timers had some pretty good ideas. How did this ever get to court?
What, then, is the difference between a special interest and a political or otherwise ideology?
(also, I have no idea why you were called a troll)
Property is theft.
let me get this straight. I have two choices? eiteher I can A) Inflict physical and emotional anguish onto a defenseless child who misbehaves (cognitive dissonance will tell me I'm teaching him right from wrong) or B) dote on the child and bend to his every whim, causing him to grow up selfish and spoiled.
Did I sum that up right?... yeah, not buying it
What do I have to give examples of? You're the one who limited the outrage to girls being strip searched.
Unfortunately, someone who is 13 years old is usually used to submitting to authority figures, especially in our increasingly dictatorial school environment. Like in Tinker v. Des Moines, children do not give up their constitutional rights at the school house gate. But, you need to know your rights in order to exercise them. School officials generally want children to think that they have no rights and use their "authority" to bully them.
Personally, I think these school officials should be put on the sex offenders database. They probably get off on the idea that they can strip search a thirteen year-old. They shouldn't even be allowed near children, let alone allowed to teach them!
Similar to the upcoming US election results
Very true. Adult pretension is the grease in the gears of society - without it, there would only be the truth - that we are all selfish, unrepentant egoists. Not a friendly truth, easy to see why it's left untouched.
"In the absence of the ability to establish the attribute of truth they tried to establish the noble attributes."
Obama Policies Will Bankrupt USA Tsarkon Reports
(Note: We are not a GOP-sters, Republicans or affiliated with any parties, and as George Washington warned against parties We do not believe in parties and, unlike most people, We evaluate every issue on a case by case basis and do not defer to the judgments of politicians who are corrupted and untrustworthy as a group.)
Yuan Forwards Show China May Buy Fewer Treasuries, UBS Says
Anemic Treasury auction effects felt beyond bonds
The Sherminator Kicks Some Wall Street Ass
China Angry That Fed Is Deliberately Destroying The Dollar
China suggests switch from dollar as reserve currency
What are the reserve currencies?
Anatomy of a taxpayer giveaway to investors
Geithner rescue package 'robbery of the American people'
Geithner just put only the rich in Titanics lifeboats
Geithner Plan Will Rob US Taxpayers
A False Choice
Bargain-hunting house buyers wearing on sellers ajc.com
Time to Take the Steering Wheel out of Geithner's Hands
Socialising and Privatising
Fannie, Freddie to pay out bonuses
Fitch Raises Prime Jumbo Loan Loss Estimates Sharply
Chinas central bank on Monday proposed replacing the US dollar as the international reserve currency with a new global system controlled by the International Monetary Fund
- Russia on an new world reserve currency: It is necessary to work out and adopt internationally recognized standards for macroeconomic and budget policy, which are binding for the leading world economies, including the countries issuing reserve currencies - the Kremlin proposals read.
- President Barack "The Teleprompter" Obama is deeply connected to corruption. Rahm Emanuel, his Chief of Staff, is radical authoritarian statist whose father was part of the murderous civilian-killing Israeli terrorist organization known as IRGUN who is obsessed with gun control and compulsory service to the country in a capacity which he has yet to define. (Think brown-shirts.) Barack is intimately connected to disgraced Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich (Rahm inherited Rod's federal-congress seat). Barack Obama is also connected to William Ayers (who ghost-wrote his books); Ayers is a man who promotes the concept that civilian collateral damage is ok in a war against freedom. Saul Alinsky, a man who made the quote as follows, "From all our legends, mythology, and history (
Obama Policies Will Bankrupt USA Tsarkon Reports
(Note: We are not a GOP-sters, Republicans or affiliated with any parties, and as George Washington warned against parties We do not believe in parties and, unlike most people, We evaluate every issue on a case by case basis and do not defer to the judgments of politicians who are corrupted and untrustworthy as a group.)
Yuan Forwards Show China May Buy Fewer Treasuries, UBS Says
Anemic Treasury auction effects felt beyond bonds
The Sherminator Kicks Some Wall Street Ass
China Angry That Fed Is Deliberately Destroying The Dollar
China suggests switch from dollar as reserve currency
What are the reserve currencies?
Anatomy of a taxpayer giveaway to investors
Geithner rescue package 'robbery of the American people'
Geithner just put only the rich in Titanics lifeboats
Geithner Plan Will Rob US Taxpayers
A False Choice
Bargain-hunting house buyers wearing on sellers ajc.com
Time to Take the Steering Wheel out of Geithner's Hands
Socialising and Privatising
Fannie, Freddie to pay out bonuses
Fitch Raises Prime Jumbo Loan Loss Estimates Sharply
Chinas central bank on Monday proposed replacing the US dollar as the international reserve currency with a new global system controlled by the International Monetary Fund
- Russia on an new world reserve currency: It is necessary to work out and adopt internationally recognized standards for macroeconomic and budget policy, which are binding for the leading world economies, including the countries issuing reserve currencies - the Kremlin proposals read.
- President Barack "The Teleprompter" Obama is deeply connected to corruption. Rahm Emanuel, his Chief of Staff, is radical authoritarian statist whose father was part of the murderous civilian-killing Israeli terrorist organization known as IRGUN who is obsessed with gun control and compulsory service to the country in a capacity which he has yet to define. (Think brown-shirts.) Barack is intimately connected to disgraced Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich (Rahm inherited Rod's federal-congress seat). Barack Obama is also connected to William Ayers (who ghost-wrote his books); Ayers is a man who promotes the concept that civilian collateral damage is ok in a war against freedom. Saul Alinsky, a man who made the quote as follows, "From all our legends, mythology, and history (
Obama Policies Will Bankrupt USA Tsarkon Reports
(Note: We are not a GOP-sters, Republicans or affiliated with any parties, and as George Washington warned against parties We do not believe in parties and, unlike most people, We evaluate every issue on a case by case basis and do not defer to the judgments of politicians who are corrupted and untrustworthy as a group.)
Yuan Forwards Show China May Buy Fewer Treasuries, UBS Says
Anemic Treasury auction effects felt beyond bonds
The Sherminator Kicks Some Wall Street Ass
China Angry That Fed Is Deliberately Destroying The Dollar
China suggests switch from dollar as reserve currency
What are the reserve currencies?
Anatomy of a taxpayer giveaway to investors
Geithner rescue package 'robbery of the American people'
Geithner just put only the rich in Titanics lifeboats
Geithner Plan Will Rob US Taxpayers
A False Choice
Bargain-hunting house buyers wearing on sellers ajc.com
Time to Take the Steering Wheel out of Geithner's Hands
Socialising and Privatising
Fannie, Freddie to pay out bonuses
Fitch Raises Prime Jumbo Loan Loss Estimates Sharply
Chinas central bank on Monday proposed replacing the US dollar as the international reserve currency with a new global system controlled by the International Monetary Fund
- Russia on an new world reserve currency: It is necessary to work out and adopt internationally recognized standards for macroeconomic and budget policy, which are binding for the leading world economies, including the countries issuing reserve currencies - the Kremlin proposals read.
- President Barack "The Teleprompter" Obama is deeply connected to corruption. Rahm Emanuel, his Chief of Staff, is radical authoritarian statist whose father was part of the murderous civilian-killing Israeli terrorist organization known as IRGUN who is obsessed with gun control and compulsory service to the country in a capacity which he has yet to define. (Think brown-shirts.) Barack is intimately connected to disgraced Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich (Rahm inherited Rod's federal-congress seat). Barack Obama is also connected to William Ayers (who ghost-wrote his books); Ayers is a man who promotes the concept that civilian collateral damage is ok in a war against freedom. Saul Alinsky, a man who made the quote as follows, "From all our legends, mythology, and history (
I tried it as a parent because I was raised that way. I stopped when I realized that if I kept doing it, I would likely end up being one of those people we read about in the paper who abuse their kids. I'll let you know in about 20 years whether the non-violent approach of counting her "out" we have been using works, but if I had it to do again, I'd never lay a hand on my kid, and I'll never advise anyone to do so. Spanking or using physical pain means the parent has lost control.
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell