Slashdot Mirror
3rd-Grader Busted For Jolly Rancher Possession
theodp writes "A third-grader in a small Texas school district received a week's detention for merely possessing a Jolly Rancher. Leighann Adair, 10, was eating lunch Monday when a teacher confiscated the candy. Her parents said she was in tears when she arrived home later that afternoon and handed them the detention notice. But school officials are defending the sentence, saying the school was abiding by a state guideline that banned 'minimal nutrition' foods. 'Whether or not I agree with the guidelines, we have to follow the rules,' said school superintendent Jack Ellis."
What were the parents thinking ?
We are obviously faced with a loophole in the law here. We urgently need to enhance the law so we can prosecute the parents of the child with criminal charges.
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
From our so-called educators.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
This has to be the most idiotic story I've read in years. Someone clearly isn't in touch with reality here.
suck it! That's what it's for right?
In my day we managed to carry around weed and not get caught. The fact that she got caught with a Jolly Rancher proves what I suspect - kids today are a little slower, mentally speaking.
Learning to get away with stuff is vital to the developmental process. I see a sad future where the adults of tomorrow are too stupid to run a decent ponzi scheme, and all the good ones are owned by foreigners.
But it contains an amount of sugar that is the recommended amount for 3 days!
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
The state law does not restrict what the parents may include in a child's lunch, however, the girl's parents did not include the candy, it was given to her by another student (probably a friend)... Still seems very stupid, especially if her parents were to give her other foods lacking in nutritional value.
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
taking candy from a 3rd grader
This third grader, her parents and those who read the story are learning a valuable lesson about the nature of the state.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
while walking home from school after teacher implements zero tolerance policy and confiscates condition-regulating candy.
I suppose it would take something terrible like the hypothetical situation above to put tolerance back into the system.
What if she were diabetic and her blood sugar was low?
Her parents think the detention is stupid, tell the school that she won't be staying for it, and there's nothing the school can do about it. Right?
In loco parentis doesn't trump erm, er, whatever the Latin for 'actual parents' is, does it?
Here in the UK when my teacher tried to include me in a class detention because most of the class were misbehaving, my parents told the school that they wouldn't be allowing me to be kept in, and that was the end of it.
FGD 135
"Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together...mass hysteria!" -Venkman
Living With a Nerd
The Texas Public School Nutrition Policy (TPSNP) explicitly states that it does not restrict what foods or beverages parents may provide for their own children's consumption. The policy also explicitly states that school officials may adopt a local policy that is more restrictive than the state's.
State guidelines my big fat triple stacker cheeseburger. That would have had to been a school imposed Policy, according to this.
If this EVER happend to my kid, I would be down at this principal's office, telling him to shove thier policy up their ass sideways and my son would absolutely not be serving any detention over a friggin' piece of candy.
They want to press? I'll be pressing buttons on the phone for my lawyer and the local newsmedia myself. Legal nightmare, PR nightmare, financial nightmare... they'll have all of that for sure.
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
And in Texas, no less.
There may in fact be no hope for our Union.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
It's even stupider than that. The rules the board are citing clearly states that they do NOT restrict what foods parents can give their children.
But the candy didn't come from her parents, it was given to her by another student, who had gotten it from HER parents.
Nobody is suggesting punishing the other child though.
I seem to recall when I was in school, if you brought candy you were ENCOURAGED to share with the class. Now if you share a piece of candy with your friend - your friend gets detention !
Seriously, it's noble for the department to ensure that children get a decent, healthy and nutritional meal at lunchtime. Punishing a child for taking part in the time honored tradition of sharing (especially the recipient) is just outright stupid.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
This has to be the most obsurd story I have ever seen. Honestly to say that we are banning all minimal nutrition foods, is rediculous. Why is it this country has started to give the Gov't so much power that now they decide what we are and aren't allowed to eat, and where we are going to eat it at? I know I love candy and hell in my old h/s the band kids sold some phenomenal chocolate chip cookies. We even had a snack line that you could get candy. What are the fundraisers now gonna be well were not gonna sell cookies or chocolate, we selling vegetables from now on and maybe some fruit. Seriously this is just rediculous. I don't blame the kid or the parents or even the kid that gave the candy to the girl. I would just skip detention and let them suspend my kid for however many days they want. This is just ludicrous. Hell even my kid whos 2 gets to eat chocolate and such every now and again. Its not like he gets it every day but really to have the gov't or the school or whomever step in and say its illegal is WRONG!
then crack. Clearly the guidelines are in place to protect children from this heinous gateway drug/candy.
If your going to do the crime youve gotta be willing to do the time. Book her Danno.
It's nice to know that they still find new ways to make children afraid and paranoid of authority figures.
I think they should enact a 10-20-life policy for kids who get caught with multiple jolly ranchers with intention to distribute or consume.
If they get caught with paraphernalia (candy wrappers) they should be fined, given 5 days detention, and put on probation.
Isn't it also a law where if you get caught dealing on school property the sentence is doubled?
saying the school was abiding by a state guideline that banned 'minimal nutrition' foods. 'Whether or not I agree with the guidelines, we have to follow the rules,' said school superintendent Jack Ellis."
Except that the state guideline is intended to restrict what the school provides to students, not what students bring into the school themselves. It's about making sure that the school is meeting nutritional requirements in the lunches it provides and not that it's taking state and federal funding dollars to provide the students with pizza bought from the Domino's franchise owned by the principal's brother. It's actually explicit even in the linked article without having to read the linked statute, and the administrators dance around it as "well the parent didn't provide it - it came from another student". Still didn't come from the school - still not covered by the law.
The school administrators making this claim are either idiots or liars. They could, I suppose, be idiots - plenty of idiots get moved into administration positions where they can do less harm to students than in front of a chalkboard. But it's more likely that they're liars who think that if they "blame the government" they can divert attention away from themselves. They don't want candy in school? That's fine - when I was a kid the administrators at my elementary school had the same rule. But they didn't try to pretend like they were conforming to some fictional government requirement to restrict candy in the school. They just said "no candy in school" and that was that. And if the parents had a problem with it they could bring it up at the school board meeting and get the school board to change the policy.
Even more idiotic than, say, installing webcam surveillance software on laptops that are rented by children and then punishing children for "immoral acts" that they do at home? I'd say it's a tough call.
...telling the child you are not allowed to have this at school, throwing it away and moving on with the day? I can see trying to get rid of junk food at school as a good thing but this is just ridiculous.
And to think that when I was in school, we could take a knife with us as long as the blade was under 6", we had a smoking area in HS and if we got caught smoking pot in the bathroom, the teacher would flush it down the toilet and call our parents. We could buy sodas for lunch, bring whatever we wanted as far as food. Oh yeah, my "walkman" got confiscated once, I got it back at the end of the day tho...I also wore tshirts to school proclaiming "Yngwie F*cking Malmsteen that's who!"
I wish I still had my pee chee folder that had the knife rules on it...it would be hilarious.
From the article:
“The Texas Public School Nutrition Policy (TPSNP) explicitly states that it does not restrict what foods or beverages parents may provide for their own children's consumption.
"Brazos Elementary Principal Jeanne Young, said the problem, in this instance, was that the candy was provided by another student – not the girl’s parents."
I think the candy pusher deserves the sentence, not the simple user. This is just like the Rockefeller laws, punishing the victim of sugar addiction rather than the seller. Oh, I know she didn't buy the candy, but the first one is always free, y'know.
The closer you are to the code, the happier you are. - Ancient Geek Proverb
Let's say banning salt in New York? and having a $1000 fine if you break that "law" http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/03/11/2010-03-11_assault_on_salt_an_insult_chefs.html
I'm all for eating healthier, but THIS COUNTRY IS GETTING NUTTIER AND NUTTIER. I never smoked, but banning it and making it illegal were harbingers of things to come. Then the Safety Police got involved with seatbelts... Then trans fats and high fructose corn syrup... As they are all hard to defend against, everyone has let this country start down the slippery slope because 'Well, it won't affect me much and its a good thing...". Everyone should WAKE-UP. Tell the Health Police to pound sand and demand more personal accountability responsibility, not hand over more decisions to the government! Detention in school as she had a piece of candy that didn't meet 'minimal nutrition guidelines'!!!? ARE YOU KIDDING, AMERICA?
talk about changing times, when i was in first grade, i took a boy scout knife to school for show and tell. another kid took it and was messing about and cut another kid on the finger, i got a 1 day suspension from school. imagine if now...
A Jolly Roger cookbook that got our school evacuated for hours back in the day.. something about a guide for mass destruction laying around with notes handwritten all over wasn't found as amusing by our school staff at the time.
Im ok..
I don't see where getting it from a friend is any different from bringing it from home. It's a freakin' piece of candy. I'm from Texas and this is just stupid.
I'll be surprised if the ACLU isn't all over this like a bee on honey; oh wait, is honey on the list too?
"In true dialogue, both sides are willing to change" --Thich Nhat Hanh
Do they get detention for eating the "food" from the school cafeteria?
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
When I was young ... a long time ago (1960's in fact) ... my family moved a lot. As a result I ended up attending two different elementary schools in Texas, one in New Jersey and one in Alabama. While I can't comment on other Texas elementary schools, the two Texas schools were overwhelmingly the least pleasant experiences of the four. One of them seemed to adopt more of a guard/prisoner mentality regarding the relationship between teachers and students. I see that little seems to have changed.
Much more enlightening than the coverage provided was a story in a local newspaper. They (gasp!) actually took the time to talk to the school officials involved and determine why such a ban exists, and why the punishment was so harsh. Heavens! It's almost like they engaged in, dare I say it, journalism! What's really telling is that it was on about page 7 of the Google search results list, well after all the blogs and screaming and angst over this injustice.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/education/Candy_is_dandy__but_not_at_school_3rd-grader_learns.html
Candy was not banned at the school because of a "nutritional" requirement, certain types of candy were banned because the kids were making a mess with them, and it was getting expensive to have to keep cleaning it up. Personally, I'd make any kid caught making a mess with candy give up a week or two of recess and spend time helping to clean the school. Or send their parents the janitor's bill for a day and let them enforce the problem with their little darlings. But a ban is probably an easier, if less fair, way to deal with the minority who were making a mess.
This still might be an overly harsh punishment for an action that doesn't even deserve punishment, but the real reason is far more interesting than the knee-jerk sells-newspapers coverage I've seen everywhere else.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
It's much more important for schools to prevent our children from eating candy, than it is to actually educate our children. The sugar in the candy might actually have helped the child to stay alert during the next lesson, which of course should be prevented at all costs- after all, knowledge is dangerous!
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
this is just an example of a school admin that disagrees with a law and took it to a silly extreme to make his point. how many people believe that he would have otherwise been compelled to expel a young child for possessing candy at school? shame on him he shouldn't be using the students he is supposed to protect to forward his agenda.
+4, +3 Insightful? Wow Mods, whoosh. This is funny. Your lack of noticing the tongue-in-cheek comment is even funnier.
Sometimes it's funnier to mod a funny post "insightful". It's a way of drawing even more attention to the comment in an even more serious light - which makes undercutting this with humor even more effective...
Granted, it's sort of an abuse of the moderation system, but, god damn it, just because someone reacts differently to a joke than you did does not mean they didn't get it! I'm sick of "whoosh", people overuse it and misuse it all the time.
Bow-ties are cool.
we should prosecute the friend. and declare the War on Candy
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
This is Texas after all. She should have been gassed and had her body displayed for all to see what this horrible criminal offender had done. God I wish Mexico would invade JUST so they could get rid of those armpits that are Texas and Arizona....
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
they would probably give me a months detention for eating my pudding first at lunch.
Then the friend should be punished according to the state's policy. Oh, wait, there's no punishment mandated for students violating the policy (it's enforced against the schools by the Dept. Of Agriculture). Sounds like another case of the local school administrator thinking with something other than his or her brain.
You want my candy?
From my cold, dead hands!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
No, the newspaper that was chosen for the summary misrepresented the issue, probably to sell more ad space. The candy was not banned at all due to a state guideline. Certain types of candy (gum and Jolly Ranchers among them) were banned because the kids were making a mess with them. It was probably that or go to the taxpayers for overtime for the janitors. And we all know how well asking for money goes over in the current economic environment.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/education/Candy_is_dandy__but_not_at_school_3rd-grader_learns.html
The actual news story is far less interesting than making this out to be a nazi plot against our chilluns so more people will indignantly read the story and view ads, I know, but when you have to go 6 pages on a Google search to get to the first local coverage of the event (you know, people who have reporters who can go and talk to people)...
The real story will never catch up with the lie that sells more papers.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Seriously.
When I was a kid my entire class was given detention because someone farted and wouldn't own up to it. Tyrannical teachers have been handing out detention for all manner of insane reason since the Dawn of School. Usually it doesn't make the news though. I would have loved doing a TV interview for the flatulence incident.
-- The reader anything less than completely failing to not misunderstand this sig is cursed.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/education/Candy_is_dandy__but_not_at_school_3rd-grader_learns.html
Candy was not banned at the school because of a "nutritional" requirement, certain types of candy were banned because the kids were making a mess with them. Oh, and by the way, the friend was also punished with the same detention.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
... when every couple of years one of the not-so-well-adjusted kids gets himself a gun and makes them pay. As far as I'm concerned, actually I'm surprised that it's only one of them every couple of years.
This is just more evidence of the transition of our society from whatever it was, into a Nanny / Police State. You muct not question The Law / Rules, and use common sense. To do so is to be a "Bad Guy".
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Look at the silver lining, at least they didn't strip search her.
In my day we managed to carry around weed and not get caught. The fact that she got caught with a Jolly Rancher proves what I suspect - kids today are a little slower, mentally speaking.
Prob'ly 'cause their parents smoked so much weed.
Idiocracy implies that there are idiots from top to bottom.
In practice, this is simply what happens when rules written by people who are quite intelligent and well-meaning and only part-idiot (because they don't anticipate the problems) are supposed to be carried out in practice by a lot of average joes.
"Have less candies in schools" is a good rule. Achieving this goal by expelling children with candies is a bad attempt at enforcing a good rule.
There was no expulsion involved in this case...
Bow-ties are cool.
Sure, this was probably the flat kind that she could have sucked into a knife and held the whole lunch room hostage!
Here in Oregon, the school bus driver confiscated my daughter's pencil and threw it away because it was "dangerous", but didn't have any problem with another student threatening my daughter with a nail clipper (well, they are banned on airplanes) right in front of her, and every school is the Beaverton School District apparently sells popcorn to the students as a fund raiser, despite the school nurse insisting to me that popcorn was a choking risk for all students. But they get really upset when you point out the logical inconsistencies of their policies.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
as the rest of the country learns how it feels to be persecuted for an unhealthy practice. Welcome to the club, it's only downhill from here.
"But school officials are defending the sentence, saying the school was abiding by a state guideline that banned 'minimal nutrition' foods" Minimal nutritious foods? Lets take a look at school lunches shall we? Greasy processed food-like pizza, wilted salad drowned in ranch dressing, a fruit cup swimming in high-fructose corn syrup, chocolate milk, french fries (they are a potato and count as a vegetable), and then some sort of dessert. How about we send the people who came up with that menu to detention for 10 days.
I can understand the basic principle. If they allow leniency on one student breaking a rule then they allow all students breaking all rules. This logic may sound contrived - and I agree is a generalization - it's principles are not. Essentially, if they excused her then more students would follow suit. However, we are speaking about a candy and not a violent crime. Should we consider behavior modification over punishment? I believe that if you educate and inform individuals they will understand their crimes and why it is a crime ( or breaking rules ) they over time will modify their behavior, but if you only punish a student without educating them why they are receiving that punishment they will lack that understanding and will not modify their behavior. Really, it boils down to personal liberties and the over-reaching-hand of the state administrators. I understand that child obesity is a serious health concern for all U.S. states, it not only impacts the health of students but also taxes our tax dollars - not to be a pun. We will spend more money for child and adult health care for health issue's resulting from an unhealthful diet. I say adults because the children will maintain their poor eating habits well into their adulthood and continue to stress our health care system. This is why I say education and information over punishment. The child doesn't look overweight to me and she has all her teeth, so it seems to me that through deductive reasoning I can deduce that poor nutrition is not an issue for this child. I mean give her a break, it was a Jolly Rancher and not a pistol.
Of all the things I've lost; I miss my mind the most. - Mark Twain
Line 1 of the policy:
The Texas Public School Nutrition Policy (TPSNP) explicitly states that it does not restrict what foods or beverages parents may provide for their own children's consumption.
This is a policy about what Schools are allowed to serve to students. Not a policy about what foods students are allowed to eat or possess.
At least in my high school the principal actually looked around for excuses to give people detention. (I heard he was a frustrated ex-cop but never found out if that was true.) Come to think of it he once tried to keep a disabled kid out of school, the state wasn't too happy about that one.
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
Since when did the State (or in this case, agents for the State) magically bypass the Constitution and grant themselves the authority to arbitrarily seize personal property? The candy has zero intrinsic value, but that's not the point. They are prohibited from randomly taking things from people. If the candy-possession presented a danger to other students, take it and call the cops. There's a due-process structure already in place. If the candy-possession was creating a situation disruptive to other students, take it to the school office where the parents can retrieve it later. The disruption is the problem, not the item.
Attending school doesn't require that you surrender your property ownership. This is one of those camel's nose events, and should be smacked down really hard.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
I find this to be especially true when dealing with School Administrators.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
WTF does this have to do with health care? All this shows is that the bureaucrats running the schools are able to read and implement laws without understanding them in the least. The law (put forth by the right-wing Texas government, if you are trying to play that card), requires that schools provide a nutritional lunch for students. It explicitly exempts parents from having to conform to this requirement. It is a rule that is not meant to be enforced on anyone but the school itself, and here they are turning it into a zero-tolerance rule on candy. All this is showing is that the idiot fuckups running the schools are treating students like criminals for being kids.
Said, "It's just like dice but it's got more sides And it tells me who lives and who dies"
Then the candy would be a medication for her and she would be in violation of the school's zero-tolerance policy on drugs.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
Nailed 'Em!
Parents like you are why highly experienced well trained teachers leave the profession and public schools struggle to find decent replacements.
Parents threatening financial and personal ruin on teachers do not encourage 21 year olds to take up this profession, and drive existing teachers out of schools fearing for their own safety. Let's face it, you don't go into teaching to make millions and retire early. You do it because you believe its a great thing to do, you do it for the love of it. Parents threatening violence and abuse will turn such people away from this career and then what are you, the parent, left with?
Now a parent who comes in to have a sensible debate with the principal, and argue that the punishment being set out is too high in a measured voice, open to listening to the principal's point of view and constructively discussing how the school could improve its policies, well those are the kind of parents teachers love to meet. These are the parents schools are desperate to encourage on to their boards of governors. Doesn't sound like you're one of them though.
Did anyone notice '10-year old' and '3rd grade'? sorry to hijack, but held back 2x in grade school. perhaps there is more to this story than what we're being told than her friend giving her some candy. sadder commentary is that we're spending so much time on this story. sign of the times i guess.
Saw some show with the Chef Jamie Oliver, where he was trying to change school lunches.
The schools insisted the vegetables cooked into a casserole did not count as vegetables, but french fries did.
Might make a good south park episode. Too bad chef is gone.
How much you wanna bet the school regularly serves greasy pizza for lunch (some schools serve it for lunch and breakfast!) which all falls neatly under the current state nutritional guidelines?
These administrators have a serious case of plank-in-the-eye.
Another example why "Zero Tolerance" is just a bad idea.
Oh, right. It's the sound of Jamie Oliver's forehead hitting the nearest wall, over and over again.
Every parent should pull their kids and spend a day with them. Let the school see how empty the school would be without them. Actually, they should pull them forever. Hit them where it hurts: funding. This kind of behavior is born out of the fact that education majors are statistically the lower-scoring students at college. So our kids are taught by the below-average to average.
Shouldn't the eating areas be constructed to facilitate cleaning?
I understand chewing gum bans, but jolly ranchers?
As far as junk food bans, this is getting crazy.
A friend of mine had her daughters zero calorie soda confiscated, yet other kids can keep their kool aid and juice boxes, which are less healthy by many accounts.
The governments solution to bad decisions by parents is to empower teachers and administration to make bad decisions instead.
This is ridiculous.
Kids should eat in an easy to clean area, they should be able to eat whatever the parents decide to send.
You are exactly the sort of shitbag that enables this sort of lunacy
And here is a follow up from the state making it clear that Leighann was not in violation of the law.
“This particular incidence of candy possession as it has been reported by KHOU-TV would not be considered a violation of the state or federal nutrition program and therefore would not have jeopardized your district’s food service funding.”
Detention seems a little harsh, but only a little. Sitting in a boring room for an hour or two isn't all that big a deal.
The schools I went to had rules about permissible foods. The school my kids go to has rules about permissible foods, and candy is expressly forbidden. We have a diabetes epidemic, and it's common for kids at public schools without food policies to show up with lunches consisting exclusively of candy and junk food.
Plato (not my favorite philosopher) argued against basing ethics on pleasure with the example that given a chance, a child will eat sweets to the exclusion of healthy food, and get sick. So this isn't exactly a new or unfamiliar phenomenon. A child in third grade isn't usually going to be perfectly competent at balancing pleasure with nutrition and health concerns, and the parent is not present, so it's reasonable for the school to intervene.
If you take MY candy, I will take it from YOUR cold dead hands.
Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
This is ridiculous! Where is our country? Zero Tolerance policies are akin to Prohibition. It will not work in the long run. Why is government, local or otherwise, so bent on making the lives of the constituents living hell? I can only imagine what one Jolly Rancher will cost that family trying to defend their child. Also, what does it say to the poor kid? Oh, I see, get them acclimated to "authority early" so when they are adults they will not question. WTF? Is freedom of self determination dead or must we obey the each and every study of the month?
.. to school.. What is this world coming to?
... I'll have a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster with a side of Plutonium Nyborg
first they almost take out thomas jefferson from texas school books because he was not pro-religion enough, and then this. tells volumes.
...
im not american, and i know about these. so go figure
Read radical news here
So are they banning French Fries, Pizza and any form of processed frozen food too? Do we get to put the school administrators/state officials in detention for serving crap processed foods to the kids? They're trying to do the right thing, but they're going about it all wrong.
I read the attached article, but I still call BS. From the 2nd until 8th grade,I sold candy at school: Now and Laters, Jolly Ranchers, Blow Pops, and a slew of other "hard candy." Not once did it make a mess. I have a 2nd grader and the kids share candy all the time in the cafeteria. There's no mess. You can paint this anyway you want, but educators know better. Jolly Ranchers aren't new and it's not like there's been a rash of Jolly incidents. Gum, ok, I can understand. However, there's no commonailty between gum and hard candy. FWIW, I take a JR and throw it against the wall as hard as I can and the mess (assuming the wrapper comes open) can be cleaned in about 2 minutes. That's nothing compared to what happens with green peas. Those suckers go everywhere. Should we outlaw peas, carrots, mashed potatoes (hard to get out of ears and noses)? Again, BS.
According to caloriecount.com, 3 pieces of Jolly Rancher candy (18.0g) contain 17.0g of carbohydrates, 11.0g of which is sugar, a total of 70 calories. This child had one piece, so that's about 23 calories and about 3.7g of sugar. So what the hell is the big deal? We're talking about maybe 1.5% of her total daily caloric intake here. If her mom or the school is feeding her some fruit juice she's getting more sugar than is in that candy, and when it comes right down to it fruit juice isn't much better than drinking a soda! Doesn't anybody know how to think for themselves anymore?
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
I actually RTFA, and I actually RTF policy too. No where does it state that the possession of minimally nutritious foods is punishable. If anyone (besides the teacher assigning the detention) deserves punishment, and that's a very big if, it's the student that handed out the candy, not the one who accepted it. "FMNV may not be sold or given away to students on school premises by school administrators or staff (principals, coaches, teachers, etc.), [b]students[/b] or student groups, parents or parent groups, guest speakers, or any other person, company or organization." (emphasis mine) Of course, the detrimental affects of prohibiting sharing and other critical social activities far out-weigh any health hazards posed by that lone Jolly Rancher. Stupid stupid school
But a ban is probably an easier, if less fair, way to deal with the minority who were making a mess.
I refuse to support policies that are "less fair." Pay our janitors more and deal with the fact that kids like candy and will bring it to school, regardless of the rules or punishment in place. Making our schools prisons is destroying our education and our youth.
And back to the topic, the superintendent of the district said that candy and gum are banned at the school because
it creates a mess. It's all over your furniture and your floors.
And then the mom said,
She didn't even eat [the candy]. The teacher took it away.
A ten-year-old was harshly punished before she ever caused any harm, and that's not right. The friend that gave her the candy got in trouble too. I might understand the punishment if she had been a repeat offender and had been given warnings before but there is no mention of that in any article. Humiliating and punishing a child like this is not fair, and that act should be punished. I hope the media rips this school to shreds. We, the people, should have zero fucking tolerance towards this stupidity.
The problem doesn't stem from giving kids nutritional guidelines. When I was growing up we learned about the food groups, etc, and nobody got disciplined for eating junk food.
The problem stems from an unchecked authoritarian mindset among school administrators. Since the 80s, the easy solution to social problems has been to criminalize bad behavior and institute harsh penalties across the board. Now when a child brings utensils for his lunch, he gets hit with weapons violations. A girl rumored to posses OTC medication is strip searched by the principal and could have faced expulsion for drug charges. Some kid gets a cell phone picture from a partially undressed peer, and he's hit with child pornography. These are just a few examples. We routinely classify innocuous behavior as the most extreme and vile crimes. So now are public schools are microchasms of a police state, with TSA security screenings, strip searches, a huge police presence, and criminal sentences for routine disciplinary problems. Institutionally, we see our children as equally capable of evil as Al Queda.
What we're seeing is the inevitable result of that process, where effective discipline has simply given way entirely to arbitrary enforcement of state power. But the process didn't begin when they started talking about the four food groups. The process started when we decided we needed to "get tough on crime" and we culturally embraced zero-tolerance. The problem started when politicians started to convince people that law enforcement was the best answer for all our social ills.
This incident brings me back to my days in the Austin public school system. For stealing food (I was neglected and starved, but nobody asked.) I was put into the ACT program, where they made me do all my class work in a small white cubicle, made me do huge stacks of the same 1st grade worksheets if I turned my head or dared speak a word. If I didn't finish my homework and the worksheets, they could keep me after school till 12am if they wanted. They had the right to restrain me if we tried to leave. After school hours they got really crazy and tried to make us slip up so we would have to stay. Eventually I just stopped going to school. They banned this program a few years ago. I also got suspended for wearing a Dead Kennedy's T-shirt. The candy incident is totally typical of that system and it is more serious and damaging to the child than some people on here would think.
They should, but unfortunately hard candy and especially gum take a lot of effort to clean up even from an "easy to clean" area. And eating areas are usually constructed to meet a construction budget by the lowest of multiple bidders.
I have a theory, but it may or may not match up to reality. The school may have been (like many schools) facing cuts to their budget, and had to lose a janitor or cut hours for the cleaning staff, so they instituted the ban to keep the effort to clean the lunch room to a minimum.
And, yes, on the topic of junk food bans, it is crazy. As a proud lover of the ideals of things like "Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution", and a full supporter of the idea that we need to start feeding our children real food, I don't think a ban is the correct way to get it done. You'll just get inevitable backlash, and it'll be seen as "government interference" and the ban will be flouted by the very people the ban would be designed to help.
Fortunately, that's not what this story appears to be about.
This punishment may still be unfair. I'm not sure I agree with a 5-day detention. I think that was a gross overreaction, unless these students have been flouting the ban for some time or the administrators had some other reason to believe that these specific students were about to make (or previously had made) a big mess with the candy. Even so, I think this is an overreaction.
But let's criticize the school officials for something they did based on the real reasons they did it and not an apparently deliberate misquote to sell more column space.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Fine. I actually agree for the most part. I think the ban was probably misguided and the punishment was almost certainly an overreaction.
But, hey, at least now you're criticizing the policy based on the actual facts behind it, and not some made-up "nutritional value ban".
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
“Whether or not I agree with the guidelines, we have to follow the rules,” he said.
The Nazi's tried that same defense and we executed them anyhow.
The girl’s mother said the incident has taught her daughter a lesson, but not the one her teachers intended.
Yeah. Your teacher and the superintendent are either incompetent or unable to think for themselves. Neither is suitable as a role model.
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
'Whether or not I agree with the guidelines, we have to follow the rules,' said school superintendent Jack Ellis.
... fuck Godwin's law.
Everytime someone says something like that, all I can think is
Interesting that that statement came after the story about the school getting a letter from the state saying they went too far.
Pay our janitors more and deal with the fact that kids like candy and will bring it to school, regardless of the rules or punishment in place.
OK, good start. A ban is a bad idea (I actually agree), but what are the alternatives? Where does the money come from to pay these janitors more? How many community members will approve the budget increase, and how many of them will rail against how much money is being wasted?
A ten-year-old was harshly punished before she ever caused any harm, and that's not right. The friend that gave her the candy got in trouble too. I might understand the punishment if she had been a repeat offender and had been given warnings before but there is no mention of that in any article. Humiliating and punishing a child like this is not fair, and that act should be punished. I hope the media rips this school to shreds. We, the people, should have zero fucking tolerance towards this stupidity.
Fair enough. But at least we are ripping them to shreds based on the real reasons for their actions.
Misrepresentations like the original article and the summary fuel the debate, but people are now debating about "nutritional value" bans. That's not what this case is about, and that's not why the candy was banned.
The punishment is extreme. The ban is probably wrong. But understanding WHAT you are criticizing is important.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
She should be thankful the school is trying to help her avoid her parent's future.
Some kids take pens and pencils and mark up desks costing schools money. Given this reasoning, we should ban all pencils and pens in schools and give detention to any student found with them.
Also, paper can be turned into spitballs which not only need to be cleaned up but cause distractions. Therefore, all paper should be banned also.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
This "article" has all the smells of 10% sensationalist reporting. That is, the part of the story that has been reported is likely just the tip of a much larger, more rational, iceberg. I failed to find any info in the article about if this was the first offense. I suspect that it isn't. Has she been warned before? Does she have a history of knowingly sneaking in contraband? In short, how many other straws are there on the camel's back?
Totally NUTS -- This is so outrageous I can't believe this story is true -- If so, move out of that county, I mean RUN!!!
Kids should eat in an easy to clean area, they should be able to eat whatever the parents decide to send.
As much as I want to agree with that, I also think children should eat healthy. There are a lot of negligent or (more likely) ignorant parents out there who are more than happy to pack some questionable highly-processed food like Lunchables thinking that it's good and healthy for their child.
Nail him up, I say!
Nail some sense into him!
Say out loud: I'm an Aspie and I'm somewhat proud, I guess. Uh. Can I write an email in all caps instead? Hm...
I'm from Texas and this is just stupid.
Well... you said it, not me.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Teachers ought to know that punishment doesn't work in the long run.
Of course, being raised in a culture of punishment+rewards=obedience culture, they are unaware of the cycle of slave conditioning and oppression they perpetuate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRE2gqjQx5Q
A more common sense approach would be to create a solution that offers alternatives to parents and makes sure parents *understand* why alternatives are necessary.
Rules enforced by violence are the opposite of leadership.
That's why the rest of the world wants to throw up when American's make claims about living in the "freest country in the world".
This makes a lot more sense, and I take back my bitching in a previous reply. A week in detention still seems like a ridiculous punishment for having some candy. I agree that being made to help with cleanup after lunch for a week or two is a much more fitting punishment, especially since it offers them a chance to see why the rule is there and learn from it.
Said, "It's just like dice but it's got more sides And it tells me who lives and who dies"
There seems to be two Americas based on your age. One where you are expected to be independent and enjoy the ideals of free speech and general independence (note, this argument is based on ideals), and one where you are expected to bow to authority on a wide range of arbitrarily-defined rules or face harsh punishment. In essence, we have made it OK for kids to be subjected to a tightly controlled authoritarian type of environment during their most sensitive years of enculturation, and then upon finishing public school, we jettison them out into a world that preaches democratic ideals. It's just pure madness -- by the time somebody leaves the public school system they will not be prepared for a world of independence at all. What's worse -- by subjecting kids to harsh psychological treatment in schools for dong things which adults would not consider any type of offense, we're stacking up a negative mental burden on them before they even reach the most challenging parts of their lives. It doesn't just end with jolly ranchers either, politics and policy is a taboo subject in schools, too. I seem to recall people in my school getting detention hours for questioning the DARE program, which was later dismantled as being ineffective. Unfortunately, it seems public school in the U.S. is about mentally (and sometimes physically) beating kids down instead of embracing critical thinking.
Schools enforce any arbitrary rules that they want. I ran into 1st amendment problems in high school (freedom of the press). I was told "You can't do that.". I countered that with "The constitution says I can." They responded with "That doesn't matter, you're in our school, we say what the law is."
The local print media picked up the story, and then the school changed it's stance to "As long as his paper does not include libelous or defamatory content." Since we had stuck with running facts (mostly, I was just a teenager) interspersed with opinions, we were safe, but still told not to do it.
Food stuffs aren't constitutionally protected, as far as I know. Constitutionally protected items are ignored as they see fit.
I believe these rules come from school administration having been in their position for years without significant oversight unless an event such as these happen. They continue to extend their rules as they see fit without confirming the legality with anyone with a law background.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
In Soviet Russia, the government controls the commerce.
In America, commerce controls the Government.
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
In another comment, natehoy pointed out another article that finds this has nothing to do with the nutritional policy:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/education/Candy_is_dandy__but_not_at_school_3rd-grader_learns.html
A week in detention is a really harsh punishment for a single offense, but it has nothing to do with the nutrition law. The ban on hard candies and gum is due to the expense of cleaning it up from the carpets and furniture, which makes sense. Kids are messy and it is a royal pain in the ass to clean up hard candy and gum from furniture and carpet. Although, why don't they have easier to clean floors and tables in the freaking cafeteria for a grade school?
Said, "It's just like dice but it's got more sides And it tells me who lives and who dies"
How interesting. That article reads very differently.
To sum up:
- 5 days of detention served at lunchtime and breaks
- School has banned hard candy and gum because of the mess
- Nutritional value is only applicable to food served by the school, not packed lunch
- Girl was given the candy by a friend who also got detention
- Candy was not actually consumed. It was confiscated.
Say NO to unpaid Internships!
I know, it's hard to admit that sometimes. The first step towards recovery is admitting one has a problem.
It is. The punishment is still extreme to the point of being silly. And I'm still not sure I buy the reasoning behind the ban.
Hell, as others have pointed out, this came out after the letter from the state food folks clarifying that candy is not covered by the ban, so this could possibly just be the school rotating in a new excuse when the old one is discredited.
I don't know the school or its policies, and of course trying to search for any "gum and hard candy ban" that might have been in place before the story broke is now pretty much impossible.
If such a ban existed, then the school's story has a lot more credibility - they were (possibly overzealously) in enforcing a (possibly misguided) ban that existed as a reaction to a real problem.
It's also possible that the ban exists, and was enforced as written, and the only real sin is that some administrator didn't take the time to understand what was going on before he/she made something up to get a reporter to stop hounding him/her.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Reading the article AND finding multiple sources? Welcome, you must be new here!
Deserve punishment = deserve torture.
Although torturing children is a centuries-long tradition, its only lasting effects are to damage the children and satisfy the righteousness of the executioners. And, it achieves compliance in the short term, at tremendous cost: permanent loss of trust, secrecy, fear, stress, mental illness, rage, and the worst of all, the lesson that violence is the way to get what you want and that getting what you want at any cost is OK.
I would say that having a word with all parents explaining the situation resulting with a signed agreement for paying the clean-up bill would be a better way to handle this, along with a list of acceptable alternative snacks. Yes, it would take some imagination and leadership, which is more difficult than using a whip, but it works better in the long term and gets easier with practice.
Have you seen Texans? They ARE FAT. They compete with Mississippians, Alabamians and Georgians or even what the old Hawaiian royalty for the title.
The last time I was down in Houston, I was teaching at NASA and I noticed then that once I got away from NASA and north towards Houston, that it had LOADS of fat ppl.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
1. Smuggle low-quality candy into school or produce it on school premises
2. Sell it for a ridiculous price
(no ???)
3. Profit
Isn't prohibition wonderful!
Given the number of digits in your UID, all I can say is...
"Why yes, yes I am new here."
Where is your lawn, so I know to avoid it? (grin)
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
"'Whether or not I agree with the guidelines, we have to follow the rules"
Which is code for, "I'm to stupid to be in charge of anything more complicated than pencil distribution."
These are the "educators" (and believe me I use that term loosely) that are supposed to be teaching our kids to think and reason for themselves. I sure don't trust them to do that when they make idiotic statements like the one above. Sure, nutrition is important, but it's the parents job to decide what is and isn't acceptable. It's time for schools to stop trying to brainwash kids into their way of thinking, and just educate them.
I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
She should have just eaten the evidence.
Parent got downmodded unfairly a few posts back and is stuck in karma hell. Please be kind and bumb him a point to get him out. If you feel the need, mod this one down as offtopic.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
I'm so sick of this crap. The constitution applies to emancipated adults. Stop trying to invoke rights that you don't actually have. But you would know that if you actually, oh I don't know, studied or something instead of trying to find your way around the school's rules.
...that they can't punish you for doing your job too well.
Unless of course it brings recriminations within e.g. whistleblowing.
It'd be nice to see this situation reversed someday.
.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
I remember getting into all sorts of stupid shit in school and getting punished for it. Some minor, some not so much.
Detention on a 3rd grader seems a bit much, particularly for a week, and particularly for eating candy. But hey a policy is a policy.
I do recall getting the same shit for chewing gum in class or wearing a ball hat (the later they would confiscate). Mind you that was not as early as 3rd grade, but hey I hear kids are doing drugs and having sex earlier, so bring on the discipline.
Anyway I can see how the parents might be a bit peeved off, but how is this just not something that gets settled in parent teacher, and its somehow international freaking news.
I think too many parents think they have the right to interfere with the public school system simple because they pay taxes and do not agree with something. Well I got a news flash: Plenty of people don't agree on things, its kind of a pretty reoccurring problem. Go to the PTA and raise hell like normal parents. Or as someone else mentioned that no one seemed to like, there are alternatives, private and home school if you feel the public option is not for your family. If you really want to throw down, well there is also other States, other Public School systems, and other countries. If you REALLY feel that it is such a big deal, and you can solve it like normal human beings through the regular channels... Well then I guess you have to ask yourself just how important that is compared to other things in your life.
Anyway I am not a Parent. Nor do I live in the US. Nor do I live on Texas. So really I couldn't give a rats ass about any of this. I also don't know what this has to do with Geeks, Technology or Computers... Heck you can barely call the baby sitting they do in Texas, particularly in third grade "education"! Likely indoctrinating them with creationism and intelligent design at that point... jolly ranchers are the least of their worries!
The first amendment starts, "Congress shall make no law..."
Who the speaker is is irrelevant.
You sold candy and assert that it made no mess. Wow, you were both a second grader AND the school janitor?
Oddly enough, I don't see any such disclaimer within the Bill of Rights. And in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, SCOTUS ruled that "First Amendment rights are available to teachers and students, subject to application in light of the special characteristics of the school environment."
You may now apologize to the GP poster for your ignorance-based insults.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Maybe the school district thinks the state law is stupid so they are enforcing it to the max to make a point.
Too bad the children are the ones who suffer due to over-enforcement.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Is that the girl who is getting punished is NOT the girl who brought the candy. The State policy says that they won't limit what parents send their own kids. But the kid that's being punished was given the candy by another student. In short, the kid that brought the candy should be the one getting punished for passing it out to other students. After all, her parents can make the call for giving their kid candy, but their kid shouldn't be passing it out to others. What's to then prevent a kid from slipping a candy to another kid with the intent of getting another kid in trouble? My two cents is that they busted the wrong kid.
-Goran
Carpe Scrotum - The only way to deal with your competition.
Thank you Con Agra & Monsanto for manhandling state regulated school lunch programs: F*CKERS.
~Just as a thing fails if it lacks a kernel, so too it fails if it lacks a skin. ~ Rumi, Discourses
Candy was not banned at the school because of a "nutritional" requirement, certain types of candy were banned because the kids were making a mess with them, and it was getting expensive to have to keep cleaning it up.
Okay so there really was a good reason for the rule. The punishment was a bit harsh esp. for a 3rd grader, but missing recess for a week is bearable. This brings up another issue. The kid goes home and squeezes out some tears and Mom goes on a rampage getting the media involved etc. This is exactly why kids have cell phones in class these days. They may text constantly and be completely distracted from learning but when the school says NO and confiscates the phones, the parents cry foul and get the policy over turned. If I were the principal I would be doing two things, tell the teacher to lighten up a bit on the kids, and then publicly I would stand behind the punishment without reservation.
-- QED
That's not the story they were telling the week before:
http://www.khou.com/news/Candy-Gets-Third-Grader-A-Weeks-Detention-93033319.html
and
Well, I'm some 30 years out of school, but no the US constitution applies to everyone in the United States.
Consider the 4th Amendment. The police can't just say "oh, he's a minor" or "oh, he's a foreign national" and disregard it. Well, on the second point, it's being more casually overlooked, but that's a completely different argument.
How about the 8th Amendment? Do the courts torture or kill minors who commit crimes? No, they fall under the same laws that we all do.
Or I guess more specifically, the 14th Amendment.
I don't see in there anywhere the text "emancipated adults", nor any reference to age at all.
But let me guess, you're a teacher. If you teach any sort of American History, Civics, or Politics classes, you gloss over these little details, and/or add in your own verbiage as you see fit.
I have kids, AND I've dated women with school age children. If the school has tried to overstep their bounds, I've reminded them of exactly such. It's been very rare, but there is the occasional bad apple. Usually it's only taken a polite phone call to the principal to get the error straightened out. As a parent and parental figure, it's my job to protect my children from people like you.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
I suppose it's a good thing you don't have a law degree, as you'd be an awful attorney. Minors do not universally enjoy the same expression of constitutional rights as adults (as an example, the principle of in loco parentis regarding school environments). The Supreme Court has held that certain minor rights may be abridged under certain circumstances, as explained in references like this one, along with countless others.
You are advised to educate yourself before continuing to post on this topic.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
It's not stupid....it's the New Order under the Obama Regime! YOU WILL NOT EAT ANYTHING WE DO NOT APPROVE OF!!
I'm posting this to a bunch of conservative blogs. Could it be /. has seen the light? Could it be the massive brainpower of /. readers FINALLY developed a sense of logic?
My son never seems to finish his jolly rancher, or his sucker, I find it stuck to the wall, or the carpet, or the dog. He ruined it for all the kids out there that savor every last tasty morsel of their hard candy. My deepest apologies to kids with a sweet tooth; if it weren't for my son's sticky-candy ways, you could all be sucking down Jolly Ranchers every single day, until the dentist shouts 'Oh joy, now my kids can go to Yale!'
Always remember the chickens that have gone before
Glad you posted this, as I was about to respond to the original post. Living in Texas, I am familer with the state guideline, and it prohibits minimally nutritonal food from being sold in the schools, not what students can or cannot bring from home (as stated in the San Antonio paper that you posted). The issue here seems simply that the school has a policy against hard candy, the students knew that, and broke the rules. However, the punishment does seem a little harsh - 5 days detention for a first time offender is steep. One or two day detention should be appropriate here, maybe five for a second offense, and suspension for multiple offenses.
Way to go Texas! Way to show the world how truly idiotic 'merica can be with the wrong amount of common sense about the right ideas. Once again you set the agenda for the rest of America to ignore. Just stick to fucking up our textbooks.
And you all thought it was us Californians who where the crazies... wait we still are...
TEXAS!!! STOP STEALING OUR THUNDER!!!
back on topic... a 25 cent piece of candy is providing someone 5 extra hours of work for the weeks detention, and, presumably, they get to eat the candy too.
42 69 6C 6C 20 47 61 74 65 73 20 69 73 20 61 20 77 68 6F 72 65 21
Every day Texas surprises me with something new regarding how much it would suck to live in that state.
Not for nothing, but I never went anywhere but schools that the janitors could hose down from ceiling to floor to clean if necessary.
Gum sucks, it does, it just doesn't degrade, but hard candy? If you put it in your mouth and it disappears after an hour, a few minutes with a strong hose is going to make short work of it.
So screw any diabetics who carry a few hard candies in case they go hypoglycemic, I guess.
Here's a novel concept. Instead of banning hard candies, ban making messes and punish those who do. I can't recall the last time a Jolly Rancher climbed out of my pocket and made a mess somewhere -- even when I've forgotten to take him out of my pocket before I do the laundry. Kinda nice that way, sugar dissolves in hot water pretty well, rinses right way and all you have is a small wrapper left over.
From the link in the article:
The Texas Public School Nutrition Policy (TPSNP) explicitly states that it does not restrict what foods or beverages parents may provide for their own children's consumption. The policy also explicitly states that school officials may adopt a local policy that is more restrictive than the state's.
I agree, a screwed up school administrator
If the kid had only jolly ranchers in the lunch bag the parent packed, i would say I understand, negligence what not... but if the kid had a full lunch, well balanced, and also had some treats for later on in the day, then i would have to say bugger off. Seriously, power trip galore....had i been there, sure confiscate it if you think something is not ok, but detention, especially if the parent was not aware, maybe give a warning that next time there will be detention...but come on, let the punishment fit the crime.
The statement I replied to said, "The constitution applies to emancipated adults."
That is false. You have first amendment rights no matter how old you are, but that doesn't mean your parents can't spank you if you swear.
What SCOTUS has said, is that a school's responsibility allows it, in some circumstances, to act in loco parentis and can enforce restrictions on it's charges that the government would ordinarily be barred from. That is substantially different from saying that the constitution doesn't apply to minors.
For example New Jersey v. TLO clearly states that minors do have a constitutional expectation of privacy.
A minor could, for example, hold up a poster that says "Bong Hits 4 Jesus," on a street corner in downtown, on his own time, and be protected from government or school intervention. He just can't do it at a "school sponsored event" - broadly interpreted.
The concept is that the school isn't acting as the government when it tells a student to sit down and shut up, it's acting as a parent. A parent doesn't have to respect your constitutional rights. The only problem is a line drawing one, i.e. when is the school your daddy, and when is it big brother? Going back to New Jersey v. T.L.O., students have rights, but so do schools. So while a school can search your personal backpack without probable cause it still requires a reasonable suspicion.
I might not be a lawyer, but that doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about - so don't be a dick.
I was thinking, heck maybe the ban of tylenol has a reason, maybe it is something highly adictive, or dangerous or both.
turns out tylenol is the name for a brand containing paracetamol. In other word they were strip searching somebody for a FUCKING ASPIRIN.
The zero tolerance policy made no sense to me before as an european, but now that I know it is paracetamol, I can only think it went beyond ridicule , broke the fourth barrier, to explode in the face.
Call me troll, or off topic, but I can only shake head.
As for the dirty candy things, how often did that happens ? Was it all kids ? From my time as kids we did not have candy which were so dirty as to make more than our own shirt dirty. What the heck are you selling in AMerica ? Exploding melted chocolate candy ?
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
What the hell is happening to our schools? Is there too many chiefs, and not enough Indians?
This is the most absolutely ridiculous story I have heard this week. Oh wait! This is Monday!
On a serious note... didn't the teachers see a problem with disciplining the child like that? Don't they have better things to do?
I am convinced that such policies--and knee-jerk "zero tolerance" policies in general--contribute to crime, because they teach impressionable children that rules and laws are arbitrary, unreasonable, and unfair, and that the people who create and enforce them are fools who are unworthy of respect.
I got out of public school almost 15 years ago. And back then it was pretty crazy with rules that were enforced by mindless drones. Not a lot of critical thinking going on with the staff at my public school. (especially middle school for some reason).
I think things are probably worse now than when I went to school. It's like some kind of nightmarish Orwellian dystopia. A rule for every behavior, where the rules are applied sporadically but harshly. There is so much fear in schools that some parent or interest group is going to prosecute that they act like idiots and get themselves in even more trouble.
What hasn't changed since I was in school is how public schools will stubbornly stand by their moronic decisions.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
You obviously don't pay much attention to how the economy works in this country.
Something I hear a lot is that people are disgusted by the number of fat people in this country and want to keep our children away from fatty foods... this here is the result of that thinking. We've started to ban soda from schools. Candy is next. So is that acceptable? I don't know, but there is certainly a line to be found somewhere where we're protecting the children or denying them what they want to eat.
How is it that teenagers are getting child porn charges for simple nudity or partial nudity? Nudity alone isn't generally considered porn. There are a number of movies a person can rent from a regular video store or buy on Amazon that have minors nude. (Pretty Baby, American Beauty, Zeffirelli Romeo & Juliet etc)
> Instead of banning hard candies, ban making messes and punish those who do.
Nope, can't do that, see the gun control debate...
Excessive forking causes un-wanted children.
I wholeheartedly agree. If we can't get rid of zero-tolerance or "THE RULES", perhaps the "bright guys" at the top could try to codify common sense. Something like:
Here are "THE RULES" 1-N...
Rule N+1 is: You must make a good faith attempt to understand the context of and apply common sense to each individual situation. If you do not, these rules hold you to be just as accountable (or more at fault?) as if you had completely disregarded them.
Then perhaps they could write in to the official HR description of all administrative jobs: #1 required job qualification: Common Sense.
...might work. Uh, never mind...
-N.
Give me a break... some school districts count Fried French fries as a serving of vegetables....
Not in Texas, I don’t think:
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
needs to take advantage of the situation and send this girl a lifetime supply of Jolly Ranchers - or even better, send every household in Orchard, TX a free bag of candy. What will definitely turn into a PR nightmare for the district can be a PR coup for the candymaker!
T.J. Schmitz - the man, the myth, the legend - o
rofl, good answer!
Nothing to say here... move along
A candy Czar must be appointed immediately.
This is going on your permanent record, young girl! You will NEVER go to Cornell now!
I wish this comment was humorous, but it is probably sadly true.
There are two separate and distinct questions.
The first, and the one I was quite clearly responding to is, "Does the constitution apply to minors." The answer is unequivocally yes.
The second question, the one nobody asked, and the one you seem to be hell bent on incongruously attaching my response to, is whether age, or more accurately attendance of a public school can diminish your rights. The answer is also obviously yes.
If the constitution didn't apply to students there would be one decision, not, as you say, mountains of case law feeling out the bounds of in loco parentis. That one decision would be to minors what Dred Scott was to blacks.
~Damn you and the GP! If we taught that objects (other than the stray meteor) don't do harm, it's the people who use them inappropriately, then we'd be teaching personal responsibility, rule of law, and how to get along without banning stupid shit for no reason! We can't have that!~
Really, weren't there already rules against vandalism? If that was enforced when the mess occured, and not prior to it, then kids might learn that they get in trouble for misusing objects. Other kids might look and say, "So, if I eat my candy and don't get it all over then it's ok, but if I use it to gum up the copy machine then I'll get in trouble" and learn how to get along in the world. All this girl learned is that rules are arbitrarily made up and enforced by those with power over her, so she may as well do whatever the hell she wants 'cause eventually someone is gonna kicker her in the teeth with a made up rule about something she'd least expect.
Principal: Hi Mrs. Poorkid? We caught your kid in school with a gum.
Mom: So... guns are allowed, no?
Principal: Yes, no wait. Oh. Never mind then. um wait. crud.
You've never dealt with small children before, have you? These are 3rd graders, they make messes, and teachers don't have the slightest idea who to punish for it.
If the problem is bad enough that they have to ban jolly ranchers, then they have to enforce the ban.
You cannot make policy around rare medical conditions. You can account for them in policy, but that's outside the scope of this discussion.
Caught with Jolly Ranchers huh? Should we read her Miranda rights, or treat her as an enemy combatant?
The faculty member was just looking forward to spending some quality time alone with this little girl in detention.
Why it is so difficult for you to comprehend the difference between "didn't apply to" and "is limited in its application to" is completely beyond me.
Given this, your attempted strawman fails terribly. Nice try, though. The chain between your original flawed statement and its subsequent correction remains intact.
I offer you this in closing: Advancing in Debate: Skills & Concepts
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
It would be nice if diabetes was rare, but hardly so. If you do not make policies considering medical conditions, you wind up with stupid policies that kill people.
And here's an example of policies that take into account rare conditions: the ADA. I can count the number of people who need a ramp where I work on no hands. Yet ramps are mandatory. Just in case.
The Nuremberg Defense is a legal defense that essentially states that the defendant was "only following orders" ("Befehl ist Befehl", literally "order is order") and is therefore not responsible for his or her crimes.
-- "At Microsoft, quality is job 1.1" -- PC Magazine, Nov. 1994
You can play on my lawn anytime. ;)
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Tinker v Des Moines (393 US 503 [1969])
Opinion of the Court: "First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."
But you would know that if you actually, oh I don't know, studied or something...
I've always wondered about that "in loco parentis" construction. What about a situation where the parents specifically are allowing their children to do something that is not and would not normally be illegal, or even unreasonable, like the aforementioned newsletter?
I'm wondering if maybe this hasn't really been tested yet as many of the schools arguing "in loco parentis" are actually doing things on behalf of the parents rather than in spite of.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
'Whether or not a child cries, we have to follow the rules under our Zero Intelligence Policy,' said school superintendent Jack Ellis.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
It's definitely a fair question. I'm a fan of things being reexamined from time to time regardless of how well-accepted they've become. I tend to lean on the "conservative" side (although I suppose that's subject to whatever definition of conservative folks want to apply), but I do like to see all parties asking questions.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
And in the school policy, mentioned in TFA, candy is okay if the parents pack it.
Presumably, a Diabetic child's parents would inform the school of their condition, and pack candy as appropriate.
'Whether or not I agree with the guidelines, we have to follow the rules,' said school superintendent Jack Ellis
Actually, you don't have to follow the rules.
What you could of done was just took the candy away and told the kids they can't eat that during school hours.
You could of ignored it.
You could of used the incident to maybe get the rules changed.
Instead, you choose to be a sheep and follow the letter of the rule, not it's intent.
Yes, I know, you run a school and you want your kids to understand rules are to be followed. but seriously, dumb rules won't be followed by kids. They just figure away around them.
So why don't you do something good for the kids, and learn to think for yourself, and share that with the kids.
Be seeing you...
I don't agree with your language, but I will stand by you in the fact that you can say it.
The student you are referencing wouldn't be the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" kid, would it? That wasn't a unanimous decision, it was 6-3 in favor of the school. Their reasoning was because it was promoting illegal activity. I don't agree with that, and obviously 3 of the justices didn't agree either. I started reading through the decision, but it's really long.
Unfortunately, events that have happened have tainted our legal system. That has made a huge set of exceptions.
I run a news site, and I am a supporter of free speech. A guy sends us emails about once a month with nude paintings of political figures. While I won't say he can't do it, I'm not going to run it on my site. It's not to say I'm censoring him. It's my site, and I make the decisions on what gets run. If I wanted nudity on my site, it would be a porn site. There's nothing newsworthy in the fact that he made the paintings. To make an exception for him means I'd have to run every submission by aspiring artists. If he wants it published online, he can (and does) have it on his own site.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Pardon me, but where did I fail to recognize that difference? I think you ought to re-read this thread. The original poster specifically stated, "the constitution applies to emancipated adults." That's BS. You seem to have taken my statement that the the speaker is irrelevant [as far as constitutional applicability] to mean that public school students have no restrictions on their speech and built your own elaborate strawman around it. You would have me argue the absurd position that since the constitution applies to prisoners (otherwise it would be useless to include the cruel and unusual clause) that they have unbridled freedom of association.
The only position I've staked out, and the only thing I'll continue to maintain is that the constitution protects a minor's right to free speech. To say that the constitution is "limited in it's application to" minors is useless. The constitution is limited in it's application of everyone. (aside: it's imprecise to talk about the constitution, especially the first amendment, as applying to people. The first amendment is a restriction on the government - which was fully half of my original point.)
But you should feel free to continue to condescend to me, as your position is clearly superior to the one you've imagined that I have. It's a shame that that debating guide didn't make any reference of decorum or etiquette.
Why wouldn't confiscating the candy be punishment enough? Children typically tend to have a strong attachment to foods they like.
8==8 Bones 8==8
it's time to give back Arizona and Texas to the Mexicans... just like the Americans were the illegal immigrants to Mexican territory 150 years ago there's plenty of illegals in the US to just hand them over a state, why not just cut them loose if they're going to run their schools and states like corrupt Mexicans... let's see how they like life on the other side of the line.
It's not because they are minors, it's because they are going to school. In loco parentis is the reason, not their age.
Yes, because Jolly Ranchers are SOOOOO messy.
There seems to be a default response to tough decisions: let's just follow protocol. These protocols are the results of our unwillingness to think deeply about problems individually. Instead, we just create more and more rules and laws that govern our social behavior and decision making. In this case, the girl snuck a piece of candy into her lunch was reprimanded and the officials who could not see the absurdity in handing her detention. And they backed it by following the "rules." Why were these rules created and for what purpose? It's a sign of mental laziness that is plaguing our country when it comes to making rational decisions. Of course protocol has its place in societies, and it should definitely be there, but we cannot stop checking the consistency and rationale of these protocols and rules. So when a girl is given detention for a few grams of candy, we shouldn't be asking why do these rules exist, but why are these rules enforced so sternly for such a minor infraction?
effective sneaking and concealing messes (or framing others for them). Ah, I see! - this law is meant to prepare children for life in the corporate world.
This isn't news. I got in trouble for all sorts of shit when I was in school, and I don't recall ever trying to make a news report about it.
The school bans candy, the child disobeyed, the child is punished. Seriously, that's all. I got in trouble for running when I was in school - that doesn't make them fascists, and the school wasn't just trying to make an example out of me, and my parents didn't get enraged and scream at the principal. No, instead, I stopped running, I took my punishment (Staying after class), and that was that.
-Bill
She had go for a smoke break.
Are you a catholic priest by any chance? *inno*
(as an example, the principle of in loco parentis regarding school environments)
Is that spanish for "crazy parents"?
My page.
Did they prosecute the friend who gave her the candy for being a distributor?
Yes, because it is well known the president of the US actively meddles in the laws of individual states.
So which do you think is more likely...it's a conspiracy by the liberals...or texas is just filled to the brim with fucking retards?
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
It looks like the school originally claimed it was the minimal nutrition state policy, and then the Dept. of Agriculture (who's policy it is) wrote them a letter and said it didn't apply, and then the school changed it's story to the mess.
LITTLE GIRL: But which cookie will you eat FIRST? C. MONSTER: Me think you have misconception of cookie-eating process.
This is a hard lesson for a child to learn, but thanks to Zero Tolerance, she is now learning that adults can do stupid things, and that authority figures are not always worthy of respect. This is a lesson she will use later in life.
Totally agree - there are many things banned in Texas schools - until recently, NO ONE was allowed to have a cell phone powered on (even visitors) while in a Texas school. The exceptions were for kids with emergancies, and it was registared with the school office. Likewise, with medical reasons for having candy, this would be registared with the school office and the nurse. When I was in school, the school nurse had a bag of hard candies for exactly the reason you mentioned.
The issue here is NOT a bad policy. The issue is that the kids knew the No Candy policy, and not only brought candy, but shared it with friends. I somehow doubt that you can justify passing out candy to friends as being a medical necessity.
Interesting that the school can't get their story straight. All TFA in the summary got was that this incident had some relation to the TX Nutritional Law, which obviously it didn't, and the person who made statements to KHOU was not qualified to speak aloud.
OTOH, I think five days detention is pretty draconian for this infraction, so perhaps the person(s) actually in charge there have a problem with their administrative qualifications as well.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
You forgot to click "Post Anonymously", and you're wrong.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
Nutritional value is only applicable to food served by the school, not packed lunch
Which is perfectly reasonable. I had always refused to eat whatever the school was serving back in the day. That was some of the most disgusting looking "food" in the world. Schools in general should really take a more active stance in teaching kids how to live healthier. Gymnastics should simply be merged with the "health class" that a lot of schools have. Teach the kids about their bodies; including proper diet and exercise.
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
The rest of the constitution applies to schools about the same way the 4th amendment applies to law enforcement. That is to say, any conceivable remote justification is good enough for the courts to create exceptions and limitations to rights. The fact that there's some tiny shreds of protection from the most egregious abuses isn't sufficient to say the constitution fully applies.
She cooperated with authorities and was allowed to plead guilty on the lesser offense of simple possession. She served five days in detention and was released back into the community.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
Your list is flawed.
Public schools are a public institution.
The rest of your list are private establishments.
Others have gone into more detail on the ways the SCOTUS has protected (and trampled at times) constitutional rights. Basically, you do not wave your constitutional rights by walking into a school, but there have been exceptions.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
> Instead of banning hard candies, ban making messes and punish those who do.
Nope, can't do that, see the gun control debate...
Whoever modded this troll obviously doesn't get it. Banning hard candies doesn't prevent messes any more than banning assault weapons prevents killings. By banning candies (or guns) you create opportunities for selective enforcement, which is what authorities really want: power.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Well, it can be argued that almost none of the US Constitution applies any more. In the 200 some years since it was written laws and court decisions have adjusted the Constitution so it barely applies anywhere. That's one of the major problems with America today. We started with a good foundation, but so many holes have been poked in it since then that our current laws are barely recognizable.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
OK -- so let one child bring in a whole bag of candy and share it. Then place the entire school in lockdown. You can't coddle these... children.
-- Gary Goldberg KA3ZYW 301/249-6501 AIM:OgGreeb Digital Marketing Inc., Bowie, MD
Remember the Golden Rule, he who has the gold, makes the rules.
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
In many schools, students are forbidden from sharing food due to allergy concerns. I don't know of anybody allergic to Jolly Ranchers, but sharing candy containing nuts should be a no-no. If a kid brings candy from home, that should be the kid's own business. If a kid gets candy from another kid, that should only be the school's business if the kid's parents have given the school a directive to prevent food sharing.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Thank you for your participation. You are number 22 to point out the obvious "hidden joke" in my signature.
When the counter reaches 25, I will change it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
" 'Whether or not I agree with the guidelines, we have to follow the rules,'"
Fuck you. Fuck people like you who are so cowardly you have stopped using your brain.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You cannot make policy around rare medical conditions. You can account for them in policy, but that's outside the scope of this discussion.
What's the difference? If I had asthma (and was school-age), I'd carry an inhaler, policy be damned. You can write the policy about drugs to allow inhalers and other emergency response devices or you can say it doesn't apply to them, but the effect is the same: sane policy doesn't endanger people for the sake of bureaucratic convenience.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
We had the same problem at my high school.
We didn't like the way the school newspaper was being run, so we started printing and distributing our own newspaper. The assistant principal told us to stop, saying we're not allowed to do it on school time. So, we just started distributing the paper on the down-low.
Hard to believe some ideas require an underground press, even here in America. If that's not a complete slap in the face to the 1st amendment, I don't know what is.
In reference to the original article, I think the whole situation is a symptom of a greater ill - that people are helpless and stupid, and that government is needed to manage all of their affairs - even their diet.
I've only met a few other people over the years who went as far as to publish their own newspaper. On that, I'll say "congratulations".
I did all my work on it outside of school. I just handed out a stack to the first person and told them to pass it on. It didn't take very long before everyone in the school had read it and I heard them discussing it. At first, I didn't admit to printing it, which left people open to talk to me about it. In a small school (just a couple thousand students) it didn't take too long for someone to point the finger back to me. That was something I recognized as a possibility from the start.
I was talking to someone recently, and we both agreed that commercial media is censored. They either do it themselves to avoid trouble, or with unofficial encouraging words. But hell, they can't even talk bad about their advertisers without endangering their revenue. Legitimate news stories will get canned because they are afraid of offending the advertisers. So that leaves it up to small publications who can't even attract major advertisers. If you went to a major company and said "We have a readership of 10,000 daily, will you advertise with us?", they'd laugh at you before kicking you out. Of course, even without the restrictions of not wanting to offend advertisers, they can still come down on you for printing something less than favorable about them.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Please perform this experiment for me, if you would. Take one Jolly Rancher. Unwrap. Place on the hood of your car- on a warm, sunny summer day. Leave there for three hours. Come back and describe the result.
Foods.. like candy (or anything you enjoy) are PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS devices/goods.
When I'm in the mood for a hard candy to last me a good 20 minutes... a grape jolly rancher is my pursuit of happiness.
Fooz can get up off my jolly rancher nutts. I'm 28, but if I was 10 and bringing some of my halloween stash, they can go suck one And I'm sure my parents would have told them to go suck one, too.
I'm not sure you can argue that comfort foods (foods that are consumed for pleasure, rather than nutritional needs) are constitutionally protected, but I'm sure not going to be one to argue it.
The quote that you're partially referencing is from the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America. While it is a very important document in US history, and definitely tied to the basis of our laws, it is not legally binding for anything other than to say that we are (or at the time were) declaring our separation from the English rule. It is very important in that it does indicate our founding fathers belief that these were unalienable rights, which by virtue of the fact of who it was written by and why, would apply throughout our legal system.
The document, noting the second statement I highlighted, would be considered treasonous. Since it was a statement indicating we were taking the colonies to be an independent nation, it was.
Oddly enough, today if you were to have a significant group of Americans, and presented such a document to the government of the United States of America, you would find yourself in prison. To present such a document in the given form would mean that you represented the people of the territory that you are claiming independence for though. A nutjob group several thousand strong, while could cause significant damage, would not represent the people as a whole. This is where such action will never happen today. People have become apathetic, and are easily influenced by what they perceive as leadership groups (their political party, religious organization, or even their preferred news television/paper/website). You would never gain a consensus of the people, because they are too easily divided and confused by disinformation through those outlets.
So, telling them to go suck one is just you. Is it your inalienable right? Sure. Will you win in such a dispute against even local government? Not very likely. But with the good old question "... you and what army?", if the group backing you is large enough, you would indeed win.
[soapbox mode off]
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Just remember, if you outlaw candy, only outlaws will have candy.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Help me out, will ya? Do we blame "W" or Obama for this one? :)