Um. Maybe -- this might be too much of a stretch now, but it's possible -- these people didn't NOTICE yahoo was selling porn banner ads because they didn't type in any sexual terms.
It would require integrity, but it just might be possible that some people don't use the internet for porn at all, you know....
This is a wonderful piece of UK legislation, which allows you to demand any company/organization which holds information about you to give you a copy (with certain exclusions ie some government agencies). So you can walk into MacDonalds, fill out a form while you eat your burger, giving the time, date, a description of yourself, the clothes you are wearing, etc, then hand it in before you leave forcing them to send you a copy of the footage of you sitting there filling out the form.
Egad. I wrote a story about this a while back. The difference in the setup is that surveillance was a little more pervasive and the corporations could charge you for info/footage.
--
Geek Trivia (why engineers don't do well on Jeopar
on
Apple: First to Latest
·
· Score: 3
A couple of years ago, I was watching Jeopardy. An engineer who'd been playing had done really well -- won several games, in fact -- and Alex Trebek said to him "You know, traditionally, engineers don't do so well on the show, but you've been doing great. Why is that?" He replied: "Well, Alex, the reason most engineers don't do so well on the show is that you're missing categories like 'differential equations' and 'rotational kinematics'".
I'll take "regular expressions" for $400, please.......ah, "What is the/eeg
modifier?"
Two thoughts spring to mind as far as recongized well-done stuff goes.
1) You may want to check out the SXSW Interactive Winners. Some of them won awards for interesting design/good flash usage. Some of them won for just being creative or having a whole lot of chutzpah.
2) I was once dating a graphic designer, and she had a bunch of books called "Design Annuals". They were collections of well designed ads (radio, television, print), presentations, sculptures, and later, web pages. I can't remember what they are or how to find them, but they exist. Maybe another slashdotter will add the info.
If there's a problem with any of the above, then it's with local laws, not with the fact that there's a rating system. Not with the fact that sometimes, people make decisions NOT to air content they find offensive or think their audiences might find offensive. Not with the fact that people might choose to use v-chips.
Ratings are just information that people can use to make decisions. The v-chip, right now, is just a technology that automatically carries out a decision, if you decide to use it.
As near as I can tell, NO ONE is squashing the publication or distribution of any content with the v-chip -- except individuals who decide they want to use the thing for themselves and/or their children.
The sad thing is, this kind of selective filtering would be a beautiful feature to have (especially if it replaced the commercials with a nice screen-saver).
I don't know. Some of the commercials are much, much better than the programming.
I'm finishing up a math degree at BYU right now. I'm also a developer and have made my living that way for the last 7 years. I've seen the dichotomy that you're talking about.
One thing you might want to do is scan some professional journals for people who are working on using computers to solve the kinds of problems you're working on. Or even other problems: the important thing is that you'll know that they are interested in applications, not just pure CS. Maybe you're looking for someone not quite so far into their career: that's OK, lots of universities have undergrad research journals now.
Finally, you can email me (uvm@sun.he.net or weston@csoft.net). Depending on the actual project, this would be great. I'm a math student, but a bit tired of living in the abstract or ecommerce world. I'd like to contribute to something solid/real/applied for once.
The solution to the fueling infrastructure problem is obvious. Not simple, but obvious.
Let the consumer buy their own filling device.
Like timothy said, someday they oughta be built into the car, with solar panels on the roof providing the energy to seperate the water by products back into hydrogen....
But in the meanwhile, they oughta be able to come up with something the size of a wardrobe or two that you can stick in your garage and use....
(powered, of course, by the solar panels on your roof and windmills in your yard)
while Starbucks is getting ready to put 802.11b networks in its stores
Is this true? If this happens, my dream of being able to easily get net access while on the road might come true. NetCafes might not be a myth anymore.
Anyone know of other places getting ready to do this sort of thing? Or at least provide places to do an ethernet jack-in?
And I'm talking about nice rates, like maybe $5 hour max.
After visiting Australia this summer, I was amazed at how easy it was to find places that offered the internet at affordable rates to any traveling passerby. Two weeks ago I was in Las Vegas and had to figure out how to around security restrictions in the UNLV library if I wanted to find anyplace to do that.
I wrote a story a while back called Block, Copy, or Destroy. The premise was: what if a corporation could film you anytime? What would they do with it? Probably try to sell you footage from your own life, much like those people who film you at amusement parks and other tourist attractions. I was not aware, however, that people were already doing this. OK, they're doing it to be in compliance with the law, and not as a for-profit venture, but yikes. One assumes it's only a matter of time before somebody tries it.
But... actually, he's right about the intent of the fraimers, AFAIK. I'm not sure it makes much of a difference, though, considering the body of case law that over the years has given us the "liberal myth" that most subscribe to today.
Hey...maybe I can start my own church for tax purposes.
I think, a while back on slashdot I read something about a gun that used some method (laser?) to ionize the air between the gun and the target. The air could then conduct electricity, and a large current was sent across it. Wouldn't this be a bit better than burn attempts?
under existing laws, MS seems benign..the prosectution is so selective..
OK, I see your point -- I sortof missed it within the article. It's easiest for me to think of MS's abuses and points of the law I may have violated because I'm in this industry and I am more conscious of the touch of their influence than any other at the moment. And though I am outraged at the behavior of the NAB or Celera or whoever, it's harder for me to see which laws they are breaking.
But the questions becomes: how do we solve the larger problem?
I can see a couple of points of action that might be good:
1) Some solid refutation needs to go into the economic idea that "There is no God but Market, and profit is its prophet". I think this is probably the biggest contributor to the corporate economy (that, and corruption).
2) Especial focus might be on demostrating how laws that keep bariers to entry low could be useful. The problem with the corporate economy is that once a corporation gets in an entrenched market position, it tends to focus on erecting or keeping barriers to market entry. So they focus more on creating a need for its services/products (psychological or actual), rather than trying to compete on the merits of the product/service alone. So we end up with smoke and mirrors rather than an effecient market. Or they focus on erecting legal barriers to competition (patents on business methods). Or they focus on keeping essential infrastructure to themselves (Telcos). Can we introduce general ideas or law that would help these practices fall out of favor?
3) Highlighting current abuses of the system is good. I know we do that here on Slashdot, but it's sortof preaching to the choir (Hmmm. Sometimes, Jon, I think that your insights and abilities are somewhat wasted here).
This might not hold up under law, but the main thing I've always been threatened about with MS was the sway they hold over default services installed with a PC.
1) You can't buy a new PC w/o paying for windows.
2) MS was trying to make it so that you couldn't buy a new PC with Netscape installed.
3) MS was trying to make it so that ISPs would have you install MS software. AT&T was the worst example of this: at one time, you couldn't sign up w/o installing IE and Outlook -- even on a Mac.
They failed at #3. They sortof failed at #2. I wonder if they would have tried harder if they weren't being watched.
I feel much better about the world w/ the presence of succesful Open Source solutions. I'll always have an alternative to MS stuff, now (at least until it's all illegal under the DMCA and/or copyright mechanisms in the hardware make it impossible to write open source drivers). But man, they deserve to take a shot for trying to control market channels by bullying rather than actually providing good products.
No rule. In fact, not even what the assistant principal did in this case controlled what the student did w/ his computer. The student has been continually free to do what he wants with his computer.
The student suffered only one consequence: he couldn't attend the school run by that darn principal anymore. Other than that, he was completely free. No loss of property, freedom of movement, or freedom of speech.
The point of your post was this: Teachers have a responsibility to maintain discipline and anything that is subversive is punishable by suspension or expulsion. Right? That is absurd.
Teachers have a responsibility to educate their students. In order to carry out this mandate, they need to maintain an environment of respect and order. When a student deliberately does something that would violate this, they should be punished by suspension or expulsion. It's really the only punishment that fits the crime; if they're not ready to act responsibly w/in a learning environment, then they're not ready to join it.
Note that I don't think this means there is no room for dissension in a classroom, school, or other educational community. But it has to be done respectfully; being permissive to anything else will reduce/destroy the effectiveness of the community.
This is equivelent to saying that posting naked pictures of the president is grounds for jail time since it de-moralizes 80-90% of the citizens that like the president. I KNOW that can't be legal. And I KNOW you couldn't advocate such a speech policy. So why should it apply to schools?
It's not equivalent. It's roughly analogous. And like most analogies, it breaks down at some point.
For example: how closely does the president have to work with the poster of said pictures? How much attention would the 80-90% who didn't like the pictures pay to them anyway -- other than w/ incensed fervor? Is there a difference between what you lose by serving jail time and what you lose by being barred from attending a single educational institution?
The differences highlighted in those questions show the situations have some important differences.
Let me emphasize again: the point is not to restrict speech. The point is to make sure dissenting speech is expressed reasonably and with respect so as not to cause disruption. Dissenting speech doesn't cause disruption. Rude speech does.
And one more time, since it might have been missed: Nothing I have advocated actually infringes on the right of the student to speak as they wish. But by speaking rudely and disruptively -- by being unable to dissent w/o disrespecting -- they lose the access to that learning community. Meanwhile, they may continue to speak freely and do whatever else strikes their fancy.
I think it's unfortunate that public education is required by law past elementary school. The compulsory attendance is one reason why I think the ability to participate in an education isn't valued more than it is. It's a requirement, a hoop to jump through, instead of an opportunity.
You don't have the first clue about free speech, do you?
Comments like this are the number 1 thing I hate about slashdot. It's impossible to have a discussion here without slinging insults.
If you disagree with something I say, try actually reasoning instead of asking logically empty and insulting rhetorical questions.
Yeah, maybe I'm being a little unfair
Way unfair. There's a large difference between barring a student from participating in a single educational institution and depriving them of the ability to move freely about, owning property, earning money, etc.
Great. I ask an honest question and I get sarcasm. Grow up.
Comparing closing a school to an individual to crushing dissent in China is rather disingenous. Comparing our spotlight student's action to a dissenting opinion is laughable.
"But where does it stop, man? Who's next?"
"No one. No one is next. Just Mr. Satan."
I figured, you know, since we're at that level of dialouge...
Frankly, as a former school teacher, I find your attitude to be rather disgusting. The Constitution did not become toilet paper just because a vice principal's feelings were hurt.
I don't beleive I'm advocating wiping (or wiping with) and consitutional clause. I haven't once said the student should in fact be censored. I've advocated the reverse -- let him keep his site. Let him publish anything he wants. What he loses is not even his educational priviliges (not guaranteed by the constituation, I beleieve, if it matters), but his privilege to attend the school which, by his own apparent admission, is run by questionable people anyway. Given that there are usually some good alternatives, it's not really such a punishment.
If the student's *ON CAMPUS* behavior was disrupting class, if, for example, the kid was going around saying"look at this neat URL!" and kids were giggling and dusrupting class, that's one thing....If documented, this would have sufficed to uphold the suspension.
I can't seem to find information about the case, so this is speculation, but: what's the most likely way that the principal found out about the site? Was he just on the net searching Altavista for his own name? Perhaps. But I think it's far more likely that some authority figure in the school found kids having exactly the kind of giggling/disrupting conversation you mention above, and they reported it to the principal. Or maybe they left it up in the browser window in the library. In any case, it seems unlikely to me that this came to the attention of the principal by any means other than "discussion" of the site on campus.
Furthermore, once the cat's out of the bag, it doesn't need any help to run around. The public challenge to authority has already been made. The principals alternatives would be:
1) back down. do nothing. hope this doesn't undermine authority at all (not so effective).
2) call parents (depending on parents, might work)
3) bar him from school, temporarily or permanently
4) sue for libel (more punitive than #3)
5) tit for tat. Principal puts up website saying student is the model for goatse.cx and hasn't had
a date in 3 years and all the cheerleaders think he's a loser, and the teachers hate him.
The only good options I see are 2 and 3.
But what the kid does on his spare time is his own business. I did not see it as my job to regulate what the student did on his own time, I had enough work regulating what the kid did on my time.
Again, I don't know how the principal would even have known what the students did on their own time -- Heaven knows I didn't -- unless it somehow did touch the school. The fact that the principal -- often the last person to know about such things -- knew means that it had probably already touched the school.
the pricipal probably had grounds for legal action as an individual. But as long as the student isn't disrupting school, there is no reason to kick him out.
But that's my contention. This *is* disrupting school. Things like this are disruptive of public education. Even if they take place off campus.
Comparison: suppose the kid had got on television and published this stuff? Or a newspaper? This is tantamount to telling the stuff to the principals face, in public. What does one do then?
Or, put another way, how is this different from you creating a website making fun of the President of the U.S.?What gives you the right to abuse federal employees? Why shouldn't George W. have you kicked out of the country? Do you expect him to go on paying your social security benefits with a smile?
I was afraid someone would bring this up. I don't have a ready answer. I think there's some difference between the two situations, but can't articulate what it is yet. Then again, you could argue that most politcal campaigns are pretty much this sort of behavior at a slightly higher level.
The problem that I want to solve is: public disrespect (especially in such a degrading manner) of authority figures undermines their authority at school. Undermined authority makes education harder. What do you do about the problem?
I daresay that I probably taught students equally as tough as yours, given that I taught in an inner-city school in Houston and in the "worst" school in the Red River School District (that was the one where 1/3rd of my students were there because the judge had ordered them to attend school as part of juvenile probation).
I have no doubt you were in tougher situation.
My situation was actually relatively cushy. I choose to emphasize this by saying that I was in a nice middle class area because I wanted to communicate that I probably have it relatively easy.
I don't think you can draw such an easy line between on campus and off campus behavior. Degrading statements targeted towards someone on campus among a group of school peers still have an effect. Can you punish someone for that? Probably not. But when you publish something on the net -- now it can find its way into the school, now all the students have to do is pass a URL around campus, and the authority-eroding damage is done. Since most authority-- except that which comes from respect -- is illusiory, this is important.
I'm all for letting any student exercise their right to publish and have free speech until they're blue in the face. But if they do it, they should be prepared to give up attending the school they're badmouthing.
It's almost true. I ammended it a bit, and also added a note at the bottom of the comment that indicated I knew I was submitting the same comment.
I did it because the article I posted the same comment on ran in YRO but not the main slashdot queue. I did it because I beleive in what I posted and want others to consider the impact decisions like this might have on education.
I don't need the karma. I've been floating near the cap for a while. I just post as I see it to get my ideas out, and let the points fall where they may.
Slashdot Mirror
Um. Maybe -- this might be too much of a stretch now, but it's possible -- these people didn't NOTICE yahoo was selling porn banner ads because they didn't type in any sexual terms.
It would require integrity, but it just might be possible that some people don't use the internet for porn at all, you know....
--
This is a wonderful piece of UK legislation, which allows you to demand any company/organization which holds information about you to give you a copy (with certain exclusions ie some government agencies). So you can walk into MacDonalds, fill out a form while you eat your burger, giving the time, date, a description of yourself, the clothes you are wearing, etc, then hand it in before you leave forcing them to send you a copy of the footage of you sitting there filling out the form.
Egad. I wrote a story about this a while back. The difference in the setup is that surveillance was a little more pervasive and the corporations could charge you for info/footage.
--
A couple of years ago, I was watching Jeopardy. An engineer who'd been playing had done really well -- won several games, in fact -- and Alex Trebek said to him "You know, traditionally, engineers don't do so well on the show, but you've been doing great. Why is that?" He replied: "Well, Alex, the reason most engineers don't do so well on the show is that you're missing categories like 'differential equations' and 'rotational kinematics'".
/eeg
I'll take "regular expressions" for $400, please.......ah, "What is the
modifier?"
--
Two thoughts spring to mind as far as recongized well-done stuff goes.
1) You may want to check out the SXSW Interactive Winners. Some of them won awards for interesting design/good flash usage. Some of them won for just being creative or having a whole lot of chutzpah.
2) I was once dating a graphic designer, and she had a bunch of books called "Design Annuals". They were collections of well designed ads (radio, television, print), presentations, sculptures, and later, web pages. I can't remember what they are or how to find them, but they exist. Maybe another slashdotter will add the info.
--
"Invisible to viewers, the rating code triggers the chip, which turns the television screen to black if the rating is
too high." Really.
Has anybody made the obligatory comment about the danger blocking sunglasses from HHGTG?
Reality -- with a rating code!
--
If there's a problem with any of the above, then it's with local laws, not with the fact that there's a rating system. Not with the fact that sometimes, people make decisions NOT to air content they find offensive or think their audiences might find offensive. Not with the fact that people might choose to use v-chips.
Ratings are just information that people can use to make decisions. The v-chip, right now, is just a technology that automatically carries out a decision, if you decide to use it.
--
How exactly is this "censorship"?
As near as I can tell, NO ONE is squashing the publication or distribution of any content with the v-chip -- except individuals who decide they want to use the thing for themselves and/or their children.
--
The sad thing is, this kind of selective filtering would be a beautiful feature to have (especially if it replaced the commercials with a nice screen-saver).
I don't know. Some of the commercials are much, much better than the programming.
--
I'm finishing up a math degree at BYU right now. I'm also a developer and have made my living that way for the last 7 years. I've seen the dichotomy that you're talking about.
One thing you might want to do is scan some professional journals for people who are working on using computers to solve the kinds of problems you're working on. Or even other problems: the important thing is that you'll know that they are interested in applications, not just pure CS. Maybe you're looking for someone not quite so far into their career: that's OK, lots of universities have undergrad research journals now.
Finally, you can email me (uvm@sun.he.net or weston@csoft.net). Depending on the actual project, this would be great. I'm a math student, but a bit tired of living in the abstract or ecommerce world. I'd like to contribute to something solid/real/applied for once.
--
The solution to the fueling infrastructure problem is obvious. Not simple, but obvious.
Let the consumer buy their own filling device.
Like timothy said, someday they oughta be built into the car, with solar panels on the roof providing the energy to seperate the water by products back into hydrogen....
But in the meanwhile, they oughta be able to come up with something the size of a wardrobe or two that you can stick in your garage and use....
(powered, of course, by the solar panels on your roof and windmills in your yard)
--
while Starbucks is getting ready to put 802.11b networks in its stores
Is this true? If this happens, my dream of being able to easily get net access while on the road might come true. NetCafes might not be a myth anymore.
Anyone know of other places getting ready to do this sort of thing? Or at least provide places to do an ethernet jack-in?
And I'm talking about nice rates, like maybe $5 hour max.
After visiting Australia this summer, I was amazed at how easy it was to find places that offered the internet at affordable rates to any traveling passerby. Two weeks ago I was in Las Vegas and had to figure out how to around security restrictions in the UNLV library if I wanted to find anyplace to do that.
--
...for use in low-power consuming electronic music devices. :)
--
I wrote a story a while back called Block, Copy, or Destroy. The premise was: what if a corporation could film you anytime? What would they do with it? Probably try to sell you footage from your own life, much like those people who film you at amusement parks and other tourist attractions. I was not aware, however, that people were already doing this. OK, they're doing it to be in compliance with the law, and not as a for-profit venture, but yikes. One assumes it's only a matter of time before somebody tries it.
--
What a bunch of shit.
Brav-O. Fascinating response.
But... actually, he's right about the intent of the fraimers, AFAIK. I'm not sure it makes much of a difference, though, considering the body of case law that over the years has given us the "liberal myth" that most subscribe to today.
Hey...maybe I can start my own church for tax purposes.
Perhaps so. Let us know how it goes.
--
I think, a while back on slashdot I read something about a gun that used some method (laser?) to ionize the air between the gun and the target. The air could then conduct electricity, and a large current was sent across it. Wouldn't this be a bit better than burn attempts?
Anyone have details?
--
under existing laws, MS seems benign..the prosectution is so selective..
OK, I see your point -- I sortof missed it within the article. It's easiest for me to think of MS's abuses and points of the law I may have violated because I'm in this industry and I am more conscious of the touch of their influence than any other at the moment. And though I am outraged at the behavior of the NAB or Celera or whoever, it's harder for me to see which laws they are breaking.
But the questions becomes: how do we solve the larger problem?
I can see a couple of points of action that might be good:
1) Some solid refutation needs to go into the economic idea that "There is no God but Market, and profit is its prophet". I think this is probably the biggest contributor to the corporate economy (that, and corruption).
2) Especial focus might be on demostrating how laws that keep bariers to entry low could be useful. The problem with the corporate economy is that once a corporation gets in an entrenched market position, it tends to focus on erecting or keeping barriers to market entry. So they focus more on creating a need for its services/products (psychological or actual), rather than trying to compete on the merits of the product/service alone. So we end up with smoke and mirrors rather than an effecient market. Or they focus on erecting legal barriers to competition (patents on business methods). Or they focus on keeping essential infrastructure to themselves (Telcos). Can we introduce general ideas or law that would help these practices fall out of favor?
3) Highlighting current abuses of the system is good. I know we do that here on Slashdot, but it's sortof preaching to the choir (Hmmm. Sometimes, Jon, I think that your insights and abilities are somewhat wasted here).
--
This might not hold up under law, but the main thing I've always been threatened about with MS was the sway they hold over default services installed with a PC.
1) You can't buy a new PC w/o paying for windows.
2) MS was trying to make it so that you couldn't buy a new PC with Netscape installed.
3) MS was trying to make it so that ISPs would have you install MS software. AT&T was the worst example of this: at one time, you couldn't sign up w/o installing IE and Outlook -- even on a Mac.
They failed at #3. They sortof failed at #2. I wonder if they would have tried harder if they weren't being watched.
I feel much better about the world w/ the presence of succesful Open Source solutions. I'll always have an alternative to MS stuff, now (at least until it's all illegal under the DMCA and/or copyright mechanisms in the hardware make it impossible to write open source drivers). But man, they deserve to take a shot for trying to control market channels by bullying rather than actually providing good products.
--
No rule. In fact, not even what the assistant principal did in this case controlled what the student did w/ his computer. The student has been continually free to do what he wants with his computer.
The student suffered only one consequence: he couldn't attend the school run by that darn principal anymore. Other than that, he was completely free. No loss of property, freedom of movement, or freedom of speech.
How bad is that?
--
The point of your post was this: Teachers have a responsibility to maintain discipline and anything that is subversive is punishable by suspension or expulsion. Right? That is absurd.
Teachers have a responsibility to educate their students. In order to carry out this mandate, they need to maintain an environment of respect and order. When a student deliberately does something that would violate this, they should be punished by suspension or expulsion. It's really the only punishment that fits the crime; if they're not ready to act responsibly w/in a learning environment, then they're not ready to join it.
Note that I don't think this means there is no room for dissension in a classroom, school, or other educational community. But it has to be done respectfully; being permissive to anything else will reduce/destroy the effectiveness of the community.
This is equivelent to saying that posting naked pictures of the president is grounds for jail time since it de-moralizes 80-90% of the citizens that like the president. I KNOW that can't be legal. And I KNOW you couldn't advocate such a speech policy. So why should it apply to schools?
It's not equivalent. It's roughly analogous. And like most analogies, it breaks down at some point.
For example: how closely does the president have to work with the poster of said pictures? How much attention would the 80-90% who didn't like the pictures pay to them anyway -- other than w/ incensed fervor? Is there a difference between what you lose by serving jail time and what you lose by being barred from attending a single educational institution?
The differences highlighted in those questions show the situations have some important differences.
Let me emphasize again: the point is not to restrict speech. The point is to make sure dissenting speech is expressed reasonably and with respect so as not to cause disruption. Dissenting speech doesn't cause disruption. Rude speech does.
And one more time, since it might have been missed: Nothing I have advocated actually infringes on the right of the student to speak as they wish. But by speaking rudely and disruptively -- by being unable to dissent w/o disrespecting -- they lose the access to that learning community. Meanwhile, they may continue to speak freely and do whatever else strikes their fancy.
I think it's unfortunate that public education is required by law past elementary school. The compulsory attendance is one reason why I think the ability to participate in an education isn't valued more than it is. It's a requirement, a hoop to jump through, instead of an opportunity.
--
You don't have the first clue about free speech, do you?
Comments like this are the number 1 thing I hate about slashdot. It's impossible to have a discussion here without slinging insults.
If you disagree with something I say, try actually reasoning instead of asking logically empty and insulting rhetorical questions.
Yeah, maybe I'm being a little unfair
Way unfair. There's a large difference between barring a student from participating in a single educational institution and depriving them of the ability to move freely about, owning property, earning money, etc.
--
Great. I ask an honest question and I get sarcasm. Grow up.
Comparing closing a school to an individual to crushing dissent in China is rather disingenous. Comparing our spotlight student's action to a dissenting opinion is laughable.
"But where does it stop, man? Who's next?"
"No one. No one is next. Just Mr. Satan."
I figured, you know, since we're at that level of dialouge...
--
Frankly, as a former school teacher, I find your attitude to be rather disgusting. The Constitution did not become toilet paper just because a vice principal's feelings were hurt.
I don't beleive I'm advocating wiping (or wiping with) and consitutional clause. I haven't once said the student should in fact be censored. I've advocated the reverse -- let him keep his site. Let him publish anything he wants. What he loses is not even his educational priviliges (not guaranteed by the constituation, I beleieve, if it matters), but his privilege to attend the school which, by his own apparent admission, is run by questionable people anyway. Given that there are usually some good alternatives, it's not really such a punishment.
If the student's *ON CAMPUS* behavior was disrupting class, if, for example, the kid was going around saying"look at this neat URL!" and kids were giggling and dusrupting class, that's one thing....If documented, this would have sufficed to uphold the suspension.
I can't seem to find information about the case, so this is speculation, but: what's the most likely way that the principal found out about the site? Was he just on the net searching Altavista for his own name? Perhaps. But I think it's far more likely that some authority figure in the school found kids having exactly the kind of giggling/disrupting conversation you mention above, and they reported it to the principal. Or maybe they left it up in the browser window in the library. In any case, it seems unlikely to me that this came to the attention of the principal by any means other than "discussion" of the site on campus.
Furthermore, once the cat's out of the bag, it doesn't need any help to run around. The public challenge to authority has already been made. The principals alternatives would be:
1) back down. do nothing. hope this doesn't undermine authority at all (not so effective).
2) call parents (depending on parents, might work)
3) bar him from school, temporarily or permanently
4) sue for libel (more punitive than #3)
5) tit for tat. Principal puts up website saying student is the model for goatse.cx and hasn't had
a date in 3 years and all the cheerleaders think he's a loser, and the teachers hate him.
The only good options I see are 2 and 3.
But what the kid does on his spare time is his own business. I did not see it as my job to regulate what the student did on his own time, I had enough work regulating what the kid did on my time.
Again, I don't know how the principal would even have known what the students did on their own time -- Heaven knows I didn't -- unless it somehow did touch the school. The fact that the principal -- often the last person to know about such things -- knew means that it had probably already touched the school.
--
the pricipal probably had grounds for legal action as an individual. But as long as the student isn't disrupting school, there is no reason to kick him out.
But that's my contention. This *is* disrupting school. Things like this are disruptive of public education. Even if they take place off campus.
Comparison: suppose the kid had got on television and published this stuff? Or a newspaper? This is tantamount to telling the stuff to the principals face, in public. What does one do then?
Or, put another way, how is this different from you creating a website making fun of the President of the U.S.?What gives you the right to abuse federal employees? Why shouldn't George W. have you kicked out of the country? Do you expect him to go on paying your social security benefits with a smile?
I was afraid someone would bring this up. I don't have a ready answer. I think there's some difference between the two situations, but can't articulate what it is yet. Then again, you could argue that most politcal campaigns are pretty much this sort of behavior at a slightly higher level.
The problem that I want to solve is: public disrespect (especially in such a degrading manner) of authority figures undermines their authority at school. Undermined authority makes education harder. What do you do about the problem?
--
I daresay that I probably taught students equally as tough as yours, given that I taught in an inner-city school in Houston and in the "worst" school in the Red River School District (that was the one where 1/3rd of my students were there because the judge had ordered them to attend school as part of juvenile probation).
I have no doubt you were in tougher situation.
My situation was actually relatively cushy. I choose to emphasize this by saying that I was in a nice middle class area because I wanted to communicate that I probably have it relatively easy.
I don't think you can draw such an easy line between on campus and off campus behavior. Degrading statements targeted towards someone on campus among a group of school peers still have an effect. Can you punish someone for that? Probably not. But when you publish something on the net -- now it can find its way into the school, now all the students have to do is pass a URL around campus, and the authority-eroding damage is done. Since most authority-- except that which comes from respect -- is illusiory, this is important.
I'm all for letting any student exercise their right to publish and have free speech until they're blue in the face. But if they do it, they should be prepared to give up attending the school they're badmouthing.
--
It's almost true. I ammended it a bit, and also added a note at the bottom of the comment that indicated I knew I was submitting the same comment.
I did it because the article I posted the same comment on ran in YRO but not the main slashdot queue. I did it because I beleive in what I posted and want others to consider the impact decisions like this might have on education.
I don't need the karma. I've been floating near the cap for a while. I just post as I see it to get my ideas out, and let the points fall where they may.
--