Get Schooled

By Where did the summer go?

August 3, 2006 08:32 AM | Link to this

Finally! A federal judge who gets that the right to freedom of expression does not mean that a person can say or write anything that they please! Rachel’s parents should be spending their hard earned money on therapy for their daughter instead of hiring money for a lawyer so that they can sue that school.

By SNY

August 3, 2006 08:33 AM | Link to this

As an avid lover of the free speech argument, I say that she should have been allowed to proceed with her lawsuit.

But as a parent, I would have whipped her but for taking the journal to school in the first place.

Everyone should be allowed to write a story, but that doesn’t mean that you need to bring something like that back to school. Leave it at home and once you are out of school, send it to a publisher or whatever, but not while you are a high school student. It just makes you look guilty even if, to you, it is just a story.

By Karen Armsby

August 3, 2006 08:52 AM | Link to this

Rachel is free to write anything in her private journal. However, she should have known at the age of 14, and as an Honor Student, that when she brought her private journal to class, and shared her private thoughts with her classmate that she was risking sharing it with a larger audience…..like the teacher! Teenagers often walk the line, push the envelope, or test the waters as they learn the proper time, place, and manner for their expression of free speech. Was her journal a true expression of her inner feelings or just a fictional expression of her imagination? I don’t know, but I think the school acted properly on the side of caution. One’s freedom ends where it intrude’s on another’s freedom. IMHO Rachel pushed her freedom into the teacher’s face, and the teacher was correct in her response.

By Karen Armsby

August 3, 2006 08:52 AM | Link to this

Rachel is free to write anything in her private journal. However, she should have known at the age of 14, and as an Honor Student, that when she brought her private journal to class, and shared her private thoughts with her classmate that she was risking sharing it with a larger audience…..like the teacher! Teenagers often walk the line, push the envelope, or test the waters as they learn the proper time, place, and manner for their expression of free speech. Was her journal a true expression of her inner feelings or just a fictional expression of her imagination? I don’t know, but I think the school acted properly on the side of caution. One’s freedom ends where it intrude’s on another’s freedom. IMHO Rachel pushed her freedom into the teacher’s face, and the teacher was correct in her response.

By Karen Armsby

August 3, 2006 08:57 AM | Link to this

Sorry for the double post; I pressed once and got two posts!

By greene

August 3, 2006 09:35 AM | Link to this

The Supreme Court has ruled on students free speech rights several times. They have stated over and over again that if it disturbs the learning environment it is not freedom of speech. She messed up as soon as she shared it with another student IN THE CLASSROOM.

By SET

August 3, 2006 09:52 AM | Link to this

Children and Adults have constitutional fantasies about non-existant “rights”. When those people cross other people and actually read the Constitution they have problems.

It all starts with parents bringing up children who are self-centered and believe the world revolves around them. Silly Rachael found out she is not the center of her classroom, the teacher is. Some people only learn through pain.

But SNY: A whipping? Wouldn’t a lecture, jailing her cell phone and maybe making her walk a lot more be a better way? Whipping teenagers can really tire your arm out. I’d reserve it for felonies rather than misdemeanors at that age.

By SNY

August 3, 2006 10:02 AM | Link to this

SET,

Maybe something else would work, but my initial reaction would be that she should have known better. I protect my children at all costs, but only when they are right. If they are dead wrong, then they have to suffer the consequences - no matter how harsh.

By jim d

August 3, 2006 10:10 AM | Link to this

I don’t know the school may have taken this a bit too far.

As I understand it, Rachel’s STORY did not threaten anyone. It was in fact a fictional story line.

I can see how a teacher may have felt offended at her story, but threatened? No, I feel it was more of a knee jerk reaction on the part of a teacher and a school administration.

Let’s look at it from Rachel’s perspective. She as a student, I’m confident, had been encouraged to explore her creative writing skills, by the school. She did so. They just weren’t too proud of her content. The question has been posed as to if her writing was some deep dark surpressed desire or if it was merely a work of fiction? Personally I don’t know that it matters and the only one that truly knows the answer to that is Rachel. The bottom line is that there really was no actual or even remotely perceived threats made.

I think the school was wrong and so was the judge, he based his decision on what others may have done, not on what the facts of this particular incident were.

JMHO

And SET, you are quite wrong—The courts have ruled in the past that children’s rights are guaranteed under the same laws that apply to adults. There are plenty of case law incidents supporting this on the net, do a bit of surfing on the subject.

By Steve

August 3, 2006 10:22 AM | Link to this

Yea that’s it, send her to therapy. While they’re at, maybe they can put her on “medication.” That seems to be the trend nowadays. Bottom line, she never should have brought it to school.

By Karen Armsby

August 3, 2006 10:26 AM | Link to this

jim d, SET is an attorney. FYI the courts have limited students’ “rights” when they are present on school property. It’s all a matter of teaching our kids the limits, and the correct time, place, and manner of their speech. Freedom is not an unlimited concept.

By Hmm

August 3, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this

She never should have brought the journal to school, that’s a given. I can only hope her parents doled out an appropriate punishment. But, should the presence of a journal require suspensions and damage to her school record? No.

Private journal, she can write what she wants. She can also choose to share it with who she wants. There was no threat in the journal. It’s a fictitious story that the school chose to make a big deal over. They wanted to see a threat, they wanted to hurt this girl, and they found a way because of her stupid mistake. She never should have brought it to school.

This judge trampled a little on free speech of kids. Fine. So be it. There are other cases to be won and cases of more importance. School “administrators” need to be reined in, they’re the ones that need that whipping. They need to stop seeking out reasons to damage kids’ futures and Grow Up.

By Karen Armsby

August 3, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this

Steve, Ah yes, therapy and drugs, the American way to modify behavior. What Rachel needs is some good old-fashioned parenting.

By jim d

August 3, 2006 10:42 AM | Link to this

Karen,

As I understand it:

Public school students possess a range of free-expression rights under the First Amendment. Students can speak, write articles, assemble to form groups and even petition school officials on issues. The U.S. Supreme Court has said that students “do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression at the schoolhouse gate.”

There is a fundamental distinction between public and private school students under the First Amendment. The First Amendment and the other provisions of the Bill of Rights limit the government from infringing on an individual’s rights. Public school officials act as part of the government and are called state actors. As such, they must act according to the principles in the Bill of Rights. Private schools, however, aren’t arms of the government. Therefore, the First Amendment does not provide protection for students at private schools.

Though public school students do possess First Amendment freedoms, the courts allow school officials to regulate certain types of student expression. For example, school officials may prohibit speech that substantially disrupts the school environment or that invades the rights of others. Many courts have held that school officials can restrict student speech that is lewd.

And Generally, schools may not censor underground student newspapers because those papers are not school-sponsored. If the underground paper is not distributed on campus, school officials have no legal authority to regulate it.

Even if the papers are distributed on school grounds, the First Amendment imposes limitations on school officials’ ability to censor these publications because of content. Public school officials, however, may impose reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on the distribution of underground newspapers.

I do believe the courts would have to consider her off campus writings much the same as a paper.

again, I’m not the judge but I do believe there is ample precident in a case of this nature to warrant the judge consider Rachel’s constitutional rights.

By jim d

August 3, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this

Karen,

Keep in mind that it’s not a question of guilt. The questions at hand are Do you agree with the judge? Or should Rachel’s family have been able to proceed with their suit over freedom of expression?

I think she should have been afforded the right to proceed and let the chips fall where they may. I still think the judge was in error.

By Karen Armsby

August 3, 2006 11:25 AM | Link to this

jim d, It is my understanding from reading about the incident that Rachel was sharing her private journal with a classmate in a classroom with the teacher present. Rachel chose to go public with her thoughts, and should have had no further expectation of privacy. The teacher, the school admins, and now the Court have all determined that her writings were “sufficiently disturbing” (in the context of Columbine disturbing) to raise the question of her intentions in bringing the journal to share. Free speech has limits. For example, you cannot yell FIRE! in a crowded public place when there is no fire. Here Rachel basically yelled FIRE! when her threatening words were presented in a public place. No free speech rights were trampled here, and Rachel and her parents need to learn the limits, rights and responsiblity of their free speech.

By Hmm

August 3, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this

This got me thinking about a recent divorce case. A father wanted to have massive amounts of visitation with his daughter, but he kept putting up crazy stuff online. Stories of prostitution, drug smuggling, psychotic episodes, murdering women, etc. Some were obvious works of fiction, others weren’t clear, and all of it was attributed to his freedom to publish such works.

The judges in the case demanded psych records and in the meantime, trimmed the visitation to almost nothing. Even though the father never appeared in court, or attempted to explain his writings, the judges consider him a danger. If he had tried to argue Freedom of Speech, I wonder if he would have succeeded?

By Karen Armsby

August 3, 2006 11:43 AM | Link to this

jim d, I don’t know what you mean with your question of guilt comment. to answer your questions; yes, I agree with the Judge’s decision for the reasons I stated above, and yes, her parents are free to sue, and to appeal if they so desire. Regarding your comments, what ‘right to proceed’ was Rachel not afforded, and what ‘chips falling where they may’ are you talking about? In fact, her parents sued and the Judge decided, against them. Finally, what error do you think the Judge made?

By Karen Armsby

August 3, 2006 11:52 AM | Link to this

Hmmm, We are what we present to the world. That father was free to publish whatever he wanted on the internet, but the consequences of his actions resulted in the judge concluding from those writings that he was a danger. IMHO it’s not a question of his free speech rights being violated, but about his crazy persona he presented to the world.

By SNY

August 3, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this

Karen,

In this father’s defense, unless he had harmed his daughter, his visitation should not have been touched. You can be a little “off” and still be a good father. The courts were dead wrong in this case.

As for Rachel, she learned a hard lesson the hard way.

By SNY

August 3, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this

Karen,

In this father’s defense, unless he had harmed his daughter, his visitation should not have been touched. You can be a little “off” and still be a good father. The courts were dead wrong in this case.

As for Rachel, she learned a hard lesson the hard way.

By SET

August 3, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this

Hmm and SNY: The family courts are free to take action against parents based on any information they obtain that indicates the children are in danger. Freedom of speech is a fantasy - yes, there are limits to government powers to control speech. There are no limits to everyone’s ability (including government) to react when someone speaks their mind and in so doing exposes themselves as a threat to the interests of others. People are being denied jobs and security clearances because their MySpace pages reveal themselves to be unsuitable. Boo Hoo.

Actions have consequences. Decent people learn this as children. Some people never learn.

By Karen Armsby

August 3, 2006 12:13 PM | Link to this

SNY, I believe that character evidence is considered in custody cases. If the father did not dispute the Judge’s decision, did not defend his writings, and if he failed to appear in Court, then I think the Judge decided correctly. Failure to appear at the custody hearing is really all the Judge needs to deny the father his request for additional custody.

By whatrights?

August 3, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this

I hear everyone talking about right to free speech, and I do not think anyone has realized yet just how hollow that right is anymore. I can still say that I disagree with or dislike my government leaders, but if I am too public about it I will be publically labeled a “traitor” and “un-american”. They won’t shoot me in the street yet. However, threaten bodily harm to anyone verbally or in writing, and you will go to jail. It is called terroristic threats. If you write a story about killing your boss and take it to work so your best friend in the office next door can read it, and your boss walks up and reads it over your shoulder, you’re fired at the very least. He could decide to have you arrested for terroristic threats, and let the courts sort it out. If while venting your anger to your best friend over government policies you jokingly mention what you would like to do to your least favorite political official, you could find yourself in jail.

Our so-called rights have been sold for so-called security. We have heard evidence of this through phone tapping without a warrant and access to our phone records also without a warrant. What we have not heard is a big public outcry about our rights. And we won’t. Welcome to the world post 9/11. There have been reports that customs agents are opening mail from outside the United States. However, the public opinion appears to be “as long as it isn’t my mail that is opened, or my phone that is tapped it’s ok”. That is what the warrants were about so that there was a record you could check to see who was doing what to whom. They do not have to tell you that they read your mail or listened to your phone call anymore or why. If they do not have to tell you or anyone else why, then do they even need a reason? There no longer has to be a paper trail. If you are not going to be vocal about those rights being taken away, why do you even care about a ten-day suspension for a student?

After all, the reason that the phones are tapped and the mail is read is to prevent another act of terrorism against the United States, therefore, it is okay to do that. Well, Columbine was a terrorist act, too. Just like the federal building bombing in Oklahoma City was a terrorist act. The age of the terrorist does not make them any less of a terrorist. Terrorist organizations will make use of children overseas. If we are going to give up rights to prevent terrorism, we are going to give them up to prevent homegrown terrorism as well. Can we know which story or threat will or will not be acted out with 100 percent certainity? If it were a threat from outside the U.S. you would wanted acted upon, however, the courts and the laws are no longer making the distinction between our terrorists and their terrorists.

As Benjamin Franklin, one of our founding fathers pointed out, “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security.” I am afraid we are about to find out how true those words are.

By SET

August 3, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this

By the way, many states have begun preventative (lifetime?) detention of certain sex offenders who have already served their time in prison. Sexually Violent Predator laws lock up certain people for as long as life in mental institutions because they are deemed by juries to be too dangerous to be free because they are likely to commit a sexually violent offense in the future.

And this is nothing new - we have always locked up people who were crazy and dangerous in state mental institutions. But previously they had to be psychotic. Now they just have to be excessively horny with a taste for kids or forcible rape. You see over the centuries we’ve learned a few things about serial rapists and killers.

I’m not complaining, mind you. The point is that educators especially walk around with fantasies about what the Constitution means without realizing how cold reality really is. Then educators spread this nonsense to their impressionable students - who may be seniors in college. Students of all ages run amok in public full of their “rights” never having bothered to actually read statutes and appellate law. Then either physically or financially somebody slaps the living s* out of them. Then people like me get to explain the legal facts of life to these people. (Yes, you are financially liable for your roommates’ candle fire - no renter’s insurance? Too bad for you!)

People who go looking for trouble find it. That included poor deluded Rachael. People need to be more careful in this Brave New World we are creating. Schools really should teach responsibility.

By jim d

August 3, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this

On Tuesday, U.S. District Senior Judge Marvin Shoob dismissed the case, as well as a companion lawsuit (He was wrong for dismissing and depriving the family due process)

The judge made the following comments; “Rachel’s story alone, when read in light of the recent history of school shootings, was sufficient to lead school officials reasonably to forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities — specifically, that Rachel might attempt to shoot her math teacher,” (An illogical conclusion based on something others had done)

School officials “were justified in perceiving the story as a portent of possible future violence.” The judge said the officials could have reasonably assumed the school would be disrupted if other students read her notebook, which she brought to school. (Assumes a lot)

There was no evidence that Rachel ever directly showed the story to anyone else. (NO EVIDEVCE)

As part of the lawsuit, the family sought just $1 in damages. (Now that’s a whopping sum) What they wanted was her record purged

Karen, The judge was wrong in dismissing this case without hearing the evidence. I think largely because he would have had to consider the testimony of Georgia’s poet laureate, David Bottoms who is on record as calling “ the ruling “ridiculous, and after he carefully read her story. “It was absolutely clear to me, even on first reading, that this was a story, a fantasy story,” Her suspension recalls George Orwell’s “1984,” Bottoms said, a novel in which people are prosecuted for “thought crimes.” “It was her own private thought,” Bottoms said. “It’s indicative, I think, of the sort of atmosphere we’re creating, not only in schools, but in our country.”

The school was wrong and has dropped the original charge that Rachel had threatened bodily harm against school personnel.

Would they have done this if their attorneys thought they had a leg to stand on? My expierence is NO.

By SET

August 3, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this

Whatrights: Interesting post. I don’t think things are nearly as bad or as different from the past as you do. Yes I agree that a power mad rampaging Federal Government is a problem, but this is clearly the will of the people going back through the 20th Century with the massive enlargement of Federal Power.

Your real issue is that changing times and powerful (and cheap) technology allows for enforcement of rights and responsibity that was there in the first place but was too expensive to monitor and impose. Thus the rise of credit bureaus, profiling, backgrounding, etc. All of which have real advantages to you as well as costs.

I agree that we live in a New World. I believe that the people are getting what they want and what they voted for. The thorns could be avoided for many if the public schools would teach history and law. That’s hard to do with all the threats on the teachers, violence, drug use and bad attitudes floating around the urban high schools (where most of the kids are).

But I still hope things can improve. We have the internet and ideas and knowledge spread quickly and cheaply now. People who want to can learn no matter what is going on at school. The problem is that the rich get richer (and smarter) and the poor get children…

Brave New World.

By jim d

August 3, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this

whatrights?,

Preach on brother/sister, I have been every since they passed these rediculous laws. Nobody seems to be listening. No one appears to understand what they have been robbed of.

By SET

August 3, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this

Jim D:

It hardly matters that you disagree with the court because as far as you’ve told us, you have no training in legal matters. You would have no reason to understand what point the case balances on and as a lay person would give undue weight to points that are not outcome determinative.

Which is how people like Rachael get themselves in legal trouble in the first place. Incaution combined with self centeredness.

There is too much of this going on and in some cases it can get basically good people in horrible trouble (not just with the government but with other people).

By jim d

August 3, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this

Set,

“The problem is that the rich get richer (and smarter) and the poor get children…”

You left out the part “and we all get screwed” :-)

By Karen Armsby

August 3, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this

jim d, Neither Rachel nor her parents were denied due process. They sued, and it got dismissed. Just because you sue doesn’t mean that you have a good lawsuit, nor that you will win.

By jim d

August 3, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this

Oh but it does matter that I disagree, just as much as it matters that you agree.

The question was ” Do you agree with the judge.”

By jim d

August 3, 2006 01:02 PM | Link to this

Karen,

I just feel it was dismissed without cause. That the courts should have allowed the suits to proceed and preferably allowed a jury to weigh the merits of the suits.

So I guess we will have to just agree to disagree on this one.

By jim d

August 3, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this

Excuse me SET,

But do jurors recieve training in legal matters? And can they elect to just ignore a law in making their decision if they so choose?

By holdingAJC"accountable"

August 3, 2006 01:15 PM | Link to this

The whole thing is a red herring. School systems LOVE to make a big deal about stuff like this so they can look “tough on discipline” (remember the Tweety Bird case)? Unfortunately the media buys it hook, line, and sinker, and we actually have a debate on whether the schools are “too harsh” in matters of discipline!

Why doesn’t the AJC do a survey on discipline and ask TEACHERS what is REALLY happening?

Forget this case…look at the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of (grossly underreported) discipline incidents and ask yourself why?

Because students KNOW they can get away with it…

By jim d

August 3, 2006 01:23 PM | Link to this

“look at the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of (grossly underreported) discipline incidents and ask yourself why?”

I actually did that some time ago and concluded it was because I live in Gwinnett. ;-)

By Patti Ghezzi

August 3, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this

A friend of Rachel’s family initially brought this story to the attention of the media. School districts do not enjoy stories like this, because they do not make them look “tough on discipline.” More often than not they make them look like they have lost all sense of reason. Rachel’s case is still in the media, because the court papers are public.

Tweety bird made Cobb County a laughingstock as did the infamous French wine incident. (A boy was suspended for giving a bottle to his teacher as a holiday gift.)

Fortunately we haven’t had too many of these suspended-for-bringing-a-toy-gun incidents lately. Reporters don’t like them much either.

A searchable database of reported disciplinary incidents school-by-school is in the works and will be posted soon.

Patti

By Karen Armsby

August 3, 2006 01:30 PM | Link to this

jim d, Yes, you are entitled to your lay opinion, but you would be wise to listen to those with legal training. Example, you said that Rachel didn’t get due process. Wasn’t there a hearing in her school system on the issue? That is due process. Not all court cases are accepted for consideration, and many are decided in bench trials, no jury at all. When a case comes before a judge for consideration, he or she weighs the facts and the law, the merits and the evidence as presented in the pleadings. Here the judge apparently decided there wasn’t enough to make a case. Maybe there were no facts or law in dispute, and the school system’s actions were not those that constituted a violation of Rachel’s free speech rights, which as presented in the news article was the basis of her lawsuit.

By Karen Armsby

August 3, 2006 01:46 PM | Link to this

jim d, When jurors are listening to a trial, they hear the facts and the law and the jury charges. This informal blog discussion is far removed from that formal courtroom setting where an orderly presentation of facts and law is conducted, which allows jurors to form their conclusions and reach a decision. IMHO Rachel was free speak and she chose to reveal her private journal in a public place, so then she had to pay the consequences of her choice.

By Hmm

August 3, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this

“I believe that character evidence is considered in custody cases.” True. And, in this case, he didn’t show his character to be anything other than his published work. What choice does the Judge have? Also, it wasn’t about custody, just visitation.

“Neither Rachel nor her parents were denied due process. They sued, and it got dismissed. Just because you sue doesn’t mean that you have a good lawsuit, nor that you will win.” Some of us, including me, fear that some judges are finding Easy Way Outs. The one decision that just fried my brain was the judge in CA that dismissed Newdow’s cases based on custody. How can they say parents have the right to direct their kid’s religious upbringing and at the same time, deny it.

By jim d

August 3, 2006 01:53 PM | Link to this

Karen,

Constitutional law in regards to the first amendment has been a bit of a hobby of mine for many years, although I do not claim to be an expert. You suggest I listen to those with legal training. Should I do so without knowing what areas of law they have training in? I do know that Each area of law requires its own training ie: corporate,criminal, civil, and yes even constitutional law requires specific training if one intends to practice.

However, one need not be trained or must they be an expert to comment on law, or to voice an opinon. (its that nasty old first amendment thingy again)

HAGD dear,

By holdingAJC"accountable"

August 3, 2006 01:57 PM | Link to this

Patti,

I do see your point. But it goes to show you just how myopic school systems can be in regards to discipline. I promise you they’d rather the embarrassment of a dozen “Tweety Birds” compared to a single in-depth report of how bad conditions really are.

Why do you think school systems put in their contracts (and policies) language that strongly discourages teachers from being quoted in the media?

Yes they may hate “looking like a laughingstock” but nothing like they would hate a full in depth report with actual quotes from teachers…

PS to Patti: Nice to see you monitoring things…though I have my issues with the way the AJC board handles discipline (they will agree with me in emails, but for some reason won’t write it in an editorial) I have always appreciated the forum this blog provides :)

By SET

August 3, 2006 02:02 PM | Link to this

Jim D:

In a civil or criminal case with a jury instructions are given just for the case they are handling. So defenses which were not asserted at trial or properly developed are kept out of the packet to the jury. While a jury can do what they want physically there are several things that avoid this happening.

Jury selection eliminates certain types of people and promotes certain types of people. In my county, most blacks are (self)screened out by the jury selection process. Hispanics here in CA are more affected by the requirement that all jurors be US Nationals. Retired (aged) people are favored and are overrepresented on juries. Students (of any age) tend to be screened out except in the summer. Civil service workers are over-represented on juries. Etc etc. After the self-selection (for cause) is done then the Attorneys use their pre-empts on a jury panel that is already more than a little homogenous. In civil cases you only have 6 pre-empts anyway (10 for criminal). The biggest “for-cause” around here is that “I’m not paid to be here and I can’t stay”. With this economy this is getting more prevalent. Inflation has been very bad here in the last 5 years. Everybody and the dog works if they can. Welfare recipients don’t do jury duty.

By the time you have a jury it is not likely that the jury will turn into a runaway jury and if they do there are limits to what a runaway jury can get away with. Your panel varies by county with the urban counties looking very different than the agricultural and rural counties.

Yes a jury can acquit somebody like O.J. - but if they convict the court can if sufficiently provoked, overturn a conviction and grant a new trial. Jury Civil judgments can be reduced but not increased by the Judge.

Most criminal trials are terribly lopsided. The only reason there is a trial is that the defendant is facing consequences so high he has nothing to lose. The flip side of this is that if you are a victim and the case is your word against his and nothing else - your case usually won’t be filed. White Collar crime is not often filed (confessions help). 99 percent plus of all criminal cases plead.

Civil litigation usually settles as well because litigation costs are often greater than the collectable amount in dispute. And in some cases there are serious financial penalties if you don’t win more than a previous settlement offer (you have to pay the “losing” side’s litigation cost). So you can win and lose big at the same time.

Over time the system has developed penalties for taking losing cases to trial. In the criminal setting the “strike” system imposes catastrophic sentences on repeat criminals.

Most crimes people are caught for around here are committed by a small number of people (repeaters), largely of certain races (sad, but true). A trial is the last thing they want since they can do much better if the victims (mainly of the same race) stay away from the judge and a deal is struck. Even worse, our jury panels are absolutely full of victims of previous crimes. And in my 3rd decade of practice I see a huge increase in defendants who carry a psych diagnosis. Juries hate sex criminals and druggies and we have plenty of both in the courts.

Civil cases are largely fought by insurance and government attorneys of some sort. Divorce and probate cases have no jury trial rights.

Brave New World!

By holdingAJC"accountable"

August 3, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this

Fellow bloggers: A HUGE “mea culpa” from the CEO of the Department of Oops, My Bad. I just saw how to use italics. Sorry for ALL the caps. Wasn’t trying to shout (which is never why I used caps in complete sentences).

Ok, penance served…

By SET

August 3, 2006 02:13 PM | Link to this

Another thought: It’s very hard to get a courtroom for a jury trial. It’s almost like a triage is going on. And the lowest criminal case has priority over the biggest civil case.

Civil suits aren’t allowed to have a jury trial if the court can resolve them with a motion (like the civil suit we are discussing here). Most people don’t realize they are unlikely to ever be allowed a “full” jury trial because most or all of their case can be resolved on motions leaving little or nothing to be settled by a civil jury. Even then, you face the mousetrap of a victory that doesn’t exceed the settlement offer so you have to pay the loser’s trial costs.

By catlady

August 3, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this

In this particular case, wasn’t the legal problem for the girl that she attempted to “publish” it (share it with someone else)? If she had kept it at home or brought it to school but not had it out, it would not have been found to have a disruptive effect. The problem was in attempting to share it with another.

As Brother Dave, the 60’s commedian said, “I don’t have to watch what I say, I just watch what I think.”

By SET

August 3, 2006 02:53 PM | Link to this

Jim D:

The Calif Bar Association has one of the best free publications on the rights and responsibilities of young people which is free and on their website at WWW.CalBar.Org. It’s a comprehensive pdf pamphlet annotated with statute and case citations. While it reflects CA law at the time of publication with some Federal Cites it would be of some assistance in understanding how the law in your state might work.

Children are unarmed combatants when they get into legal battles with adults especially adults who are working in their specialties and are supposed to know what they are doing (school administrators?). If children are planning a conflict with their teachers and schools they should consult a local attorney before the fight rather than waiting till after. Children tend to be self centered and don’t consider the legal measures available to the opposition prior to acting.

Simply put it’s not so easy to do whatever you want in school.

By jim d

August 3, 2006 03:00 PM | Link to this

SET,

Yet these parents were willing to risk losing for a settlement of one (1) dollar?

Karen,

You mentioned earlier that one can’t falsely shout fire in a theater . (Or I thought it was you.) In any case, it brought to mind the following which I had read several years ago. A senior moment required I go find it so I could share it with you.

“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. […] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.” Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., 1919

We must keep in mind the use of the words “clear and present danger” I don’t see where the school presented anything close.

By SET

August 3, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this

Despite what I’ve said on this point I think that the school probably overreacted to Rachael’s situation assumning she wasn’t already on their list. Confiscating the offending document and lecturing her about what is not allowed on campus, and reporting her to her parents might have been enough if she was a first offender and not otherwise a student who bears watching. I don’t think SNY should whip her if it was a first time problem.

Teenagers make mistakes of judgement and you want them to have all the opportunity to do so early and often in a controlled environment. A greater cause for concern is when they can’t/won’t learn from a mistake and repeat the mistakes or increase the judgment errors.

Rachael needs to be taught to think of how her actions will be perceived by others and how they will interact with her in the future. Sometimes this process is referred to as housebreaking. Teenagers should be housebroken by age 18.

If this was a one time first problem and I was the school board I would question the competency and continuation of the administrators who turned a brainfart into a court case. Yes the school won. No I’m not maintaining an administration who engenders court battles over this.

I do not approve of Zero Tolerance games. Sometimes you have to pick the hill to die on - especially when dealing with teenagers and their silly parents. This sounds like excessive reaction on the part of the school administration even if they were in the right.

By SET

August 3, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this

Jim D:

There is little future in getting into a litigation war with a government agency (they print money) over a principle involving a teenaged girl with a judgement problem. There is a time to sue the school. This wasn’t one of them even if the ACLU is providing the representation.

You can “win” litigation and lose. The girl and her parents need to be more careful of how they all act. This experience is not good for the girl’s reputation or the parent’s marriage. Litigation is stressful and can have unwelcome side effects that take time for the pain to become apparent.

But I wasn’t there and it’s their lives. Good luck to all of them.

By jim d

August 3, 2006 03:20 PM | Link to this

Set,

thanks for the link. Looks to me as if the parents of this young lady did exactly what you web site advises.

When should parents consider challenging the suspension or expulsion of their child from school?

● If the child says that he or she did not engage in the behavior charged by the school. (Ed.C §§ 48911, 48914, 48918-48924

This young lady was suspended for making a threat against school personel, which she denied. This charge was later dropped but only after her suspension. So it would appear that these parents might even have a valid case in a Ca. had this taken place there.

By jim d

August 3, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this

Set,

The reason stated by the parents for litigation was to purge their daughters record and apparently they felt strongly enough about this to pursue it. Like the article states, they were seeking one (1) dollar in damages. So it wasn’t about money.

By jim d

August 3, 2006 03:33 PM | Link to this

Set,

I’ve been following school issues in Ga. for well over 7 years. One observation I can honestly make about the schools here is that they are used to running rough shod over people without ever being challenged. It’s cases like this one that bring their actions to light. And probably one of the reasons I go with the under dog in these cases.

By SET

August 3, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this

You don’t engage in litigation you have no reasonable expectation of profiting from. And by profit I mean coming out ahead in the totality. You can sometimes “profit” nicely even by losing litigation. Depends on the situation.

Mommy and Daddy may have better served Rachael’s interests by taking the 10 day suspension and quietly removing the girl to the private school. At least they would have had her privacy and the last 3 years with this behind them.

Mind you, I don’t agree with the severity of the school’s punishment for a 14 year old girl who is otherwise apparently a splendid student. I could see doing no suspension with some other slap on the wrist instead under these circumastances and I wonder what the real story behind all this is - I suspect there is something more here. But my comment here is my own political statement. I’m not the school board.

The school board has the discretion in this circumstance and a court must defer to it. Which is why the family lost in court. You don’t see this. Maybe the family didn’t understand that. But as a lawyer I do. So I don’t see the profit in the family maintaining the litigation in these circumstances especially with privacy concerns which they threw out the window by suing.

Around here with the right lawyer a better resolution may have occurred pre-filing - but that’s in this state. Geography produces different values.

There is a song - “I fought the law and the law won.” I think the results would be the same in this state had the same litigation occurred here.

I see children 14 to 18 having a bad day in CA and (other) people end up dead or crippled. It happens. They didn’t want it to happen. Teenagers do not have developed brains and they are periodically impulsive and incapable of sound judgment. To some extent we expect this and make allowances. We supervise, we don’t give them chain saws, Uzi’s and V8 engines. We limit the credit line on their Visa Cards. We get a cell phone with Rollover minutes.

Running that girl out of the school for this makes me wonder if this is all the school has to deal with.

By SET

August 3, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this

I go with the underdog too but I expect my dog to win. I don’t like fair fights in a courtroom. They cost extra.

If your schools are that ferocious why are the teachers on this blog complaining about the kids acting out so badly? This doesn’t add up.

By luvs2teach

August 3, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this

Great discussion - very interesting points by all.

Personally I’m glad to see that the judge threw out the case - not because I’m a teacher, but because I am sick and tired of people clogging up our legal system to address every perceived wrong. Sometimes you need to take your punishment and move on with your life.

Anyway, that’s just me - I know life’s not that simple and since 9/11 there have been abuses of power that we should worry about.

Playing deveil’s advocate here, let’s go back to Columbine - let’s say those boys had written some “sufficiently disturbing” material and shared it with a classmate. Let’s say that the teacher and administrator were made aware of it. Let’s says that they didn’t act in the same manner as this case. In hindsight, they all would’ve looked grossly negligent, and would had to answer questions about why they didn’t act.

D@mned if you do and d@mned if you don’t. There are a lot of nutjobs running around out there, and some of them are in your children’s schools. And the post office. And the office building. And the courthouse.

I have no answer. Just dismay.

BTW - interesting side note - colleges are having to offer seminars to incoming students about the wise use of online forums. This inlcudes, not only saftey issues about giving personal information, but also legal ramifications of writings and expectations of privacy. So our kids need this class, a class in how to speak to cops, a class in what their rights are and aren’t, and a class in basic manners.

So - whose going to be responsible for teaching them these things?

By jim d

August 3, 2006 04:14 PM | Link to this

L2T,

I’ll cover my kid—you get the rest. ;-)

By SET

August 3, 2006 04:14 PM | Link to this

luvs2teach:

“So - whose going to be responsible for teaching them these things?”

Their Parents; Chris Rock, see “How Not to get your a** kicked by the Police”; Dave Chappelle, see “Keeping It Real”; Their Peers and Peer’s Parents; Painful Experiences…

By jim d

August 3, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this

Set, the reason teachers complain is because they treat teachers as poorly as they do the students. They don’t handle evey case the same and school admins. here are just generally butt heads.

By holdingAJC"accountable"

August 3, 2006 04:34 PM | Link to this

I would like to see the AJC interview the teachers at her school and find out what support they get for real discipline problems. (Even if they have to quote them “off the record”.)

School systems are willing to look entirely foolish to create a facade that there is zero tolerance.

Go back and look at some of the incidents teachers report on this blog and ask yourself if it is entirely possible that school systems will endure ridicule just to look like they are taking a stand on discipline.

Yet we ignore real discipline problems and focus on this…plays right into the educrats hands…

By Karen Armsby

August 3, 2006 04:47 PM | Link to this

SET, I agree with you, teachers and admins should have had a heart to heart with Rachel and discussed what she did and why it was threatening and wrong. Unfortunately, schools have their black and white rules and live only for their administrations, and not to support teachers or educate students. Rachel and/or her parents escalated the conflict by filing suit. The judge put a stop to it, but did anyone (school, Rachel or her parents) learn a lesson?

By SET

August 3, 2006 05:03 PM | Link to this

A huge part of Columbine saga to me was the contents of the monsters’ bedrooms. I seem to remember that there was something in those bedrooms that a reasonable parent would have taken action over. Forgot what it was that was there in plain view when the Cops went in.

I have real problems with parents I see who have kids bedrooms filled with narcotics, drug paraphanelia, stolen property, 6 active cellphones, stolen street signs, underage sex partners, rattlesnakes, explosives, etc. etc.

It goes back to that responsibility thing. When the cops show up and Mommy & Daddy get hooked and booked along with Sonny and Cher over the contraband in plain view - the parents whine that they are not responsible for what’s in the kids’ bedrooms (or the common areas)- as if the kid was a boarder or something.

The only way to handle some people is with handcuffs. Too bad it doesn’t occur more often.

By SET

August 3, 2006 05:06 PM | Link to this

Karen:

Maybe Rachael will go to law school. Motivation is always a good thing!!

By jim d

August 3, 2006 05:19 PM | Link to this

SET,

She may even decide to become a school administrator.

By Agree

August 3, 2006 05:22 PM | Link to this

I agree with the judge. Rules are meant to be followed. There was a student in one of my classes who said he was going to commit suicide and another student said if he did not commit suicide he would kill the guy. It was my duty to report it even though I suspected the guys were kidding. If anything happened to either of the boys and I did not report it to their counselor then who would get the blame? My heart goes out to these boys and I care enough about them to not want anything to happen to either of them. Therefore, I agree with the judge because I care about the life of the math teacher even though I have never met her/him.

By luvs2teach

August 3, 2006 05:22 PM | Link to this

SET - my question about who will teach them these things was really rhetorical. I know who SHOULD be teaching them these things, but that doesn’t always happen - then YOU get to teach them a thing or two!

Parents want to be their friends and then want to shield them from pain. Understandable, but unrealistic.

By Karen Armsby

August 3, 2006 05:28 PM | Link to this

SET, YES! Law School will get Rachel on the right track, and get her parents off her back. Did she even want this lawsuit? I recently found a wonderful little book called ‘Daily Afflictions, The Agony of Being Connected to Everything in the Universe’ by Andrew Boyd that I think can put all of Rachel’s travails into perspective; for her, for her parents, and for the Get Schooled bloggers. It’s all about personal realization and personal choice. Ultimately we are alone, but the good news is that we are also in control of our fate.

By SET

August 3, 2006 05:35 PM | Link to this

On the contents of the bedrooms: Here in CA we commonly see gang members (age 13 and up) with photos of them and the gang in plain view in the houses, throwing gang symbols with their hands, in gang attire - sometimes with guns. These photos are really useful in hanging the defendants with huge “gang enhancements” on their sentences. The enhancements on some crimes can be far greater than the underlying crime - huge prison terms.

I forgot to mention my problems with parents who ignore little Johnny’s bullets in plain view in his bedroom and his car. “I didn’t know he had a gun!” Yeah, right!

Gun enhancements in CA adds 10-20-25 to life to a crime here. 10 years for carrying a gun (loaded or not) during the crime, 20 years for pulling a trigger (firing a round into the ceiling) and 25 years to life if you wound someone during any felony. All this is consecutive to the sentences for the each underlying crime - such as robbery or assault.

So when a kid has a bad day around here, it’s really a bad day. Too bad Mommy and Daddy didn’t react when they had a chance.

I watched a friend plead an 18 year old client with no criminal history to 50 years to life just before trial for attacking people at an ATM. No one was wounded. At trial the minimum was 100 to life because of the various enhancements (multiple crimes multiple victims). This way there was some hope of one day having a life as a Sr Citizen on the outside (as opposed to maxing out his life expectancy without hope of parole in prison). The defendant and some fool of a “friend” decided to go for it and didn’t consult a lawyer first. If they had only used a knife to threaten the victims…

I don’t have a problem with decapitating criminals. I just wish parents would try harder so maybe their kids would have a better chance to grow up without being roadkill.

By SET

August 3, 2006 05:40 PM | Link to this

Of course the decision to sue was the parent’s. Wonder if they went against legal advice? If they were involved with a political group duch as the ACLU they might have been swept up in the political agenda of their “benefactors”. It can happen. Maybe they all learned something from this.

Losing a legal (or medical) battle can inspire someone to pursue a career in that field. She could become a teacher..

By Karen Armsby

August 3, 2006 05:46 PM | Link to this

luvs2teach, “Who should teach these things?” I would love to write a curriculum called “Common Sense” and have it taught in all high schools. We need to talk frankly and realistically to our teenagers about their actions, responsibilities and probable consequences.

By Laf

August 3, 2006 05:59 PM | Link to this

the administration and the school, the creative writing teacher, and the security officer should have give her a good stern lecture on her mistake. This would also be a discussion that would need to take place between the school and the entire student body. Yes freedom of expression is alive and well but…sometimes creative literature that makes the majority uncomfortable can lead to unpredictable consequences. If you don’t believe this ask the author Salman Rushdie! (But a 14 year old honor student with a clean record shouldn’t havn’t to suffer suspension or expulsion when there are so many other alternatives of discipline if you just gotta dish out some kind of punishment).

By Karen Armsby

August 3, 2006 06:12 PM | Link to this

Laf, You are clearly a memeber of the Common Sense School of Thought, currently not being taught in our shcools.

By SET

August 3, 2006 06:21 PM | Link to this

I just remembered the to Life portion of the ATM bandit’s sentence was not from the gun enhancement but because there was a sexual assault on a female victim in addition to the brandishing of a gun. When the 18 year old combined a robbery with a sexual assault and moved the victim from the ATM (kidnap) it triggered another enhancement which included the “to life” provision. He must serve 85% of his minimum and then is permitted to request parole from the parole board, which may or may not grant it, if he survives that long in the big house. His mother was in court crying a river.

The funny thing is that I remember it wasn’t too long ago in CA when people were killing people and getting out in 7 years. With the new 3 strikes, One strike (combining sex and certain other crimes such as burglary) and 10-20-25 enhancements our prison sentences have increased geometrically for certain crimes. You can still get probation for stealing a million - or drug manufacturing - if you leave your guns elsewhere.

This was off topic except for the thread of parents not supervising their kid and complaining about the adverse consequences. There are worse things than a 10 day suspension from school.

By Karen Armsby

August 3, 2006 06:51 PM | Link to this

SET, Good or bad parenting shows, no matter how big or small the issue.

By Lee

August 3, 2006 07:24 PM | Link to this

Ahh,, too many targets of opportunity here… (but wait, targets of opportunity denotes shooting and lord knows that we can’t even mention the G-word [gun] anywhere around a school teacher or administrator)

• The student wrote about shooting a math teacher - fellow blogger Jeff, perhaps? {Just kidding folks.)

• Hopefully, the young lady learned a valuable lesson here. Times have indeed changed and there are certain things you can’t even joke about in this hyper-sensitive, politically correct environment we live in. I know first hand of two incidents where employees in my company were terminated (er, maybe I shouldn’t say terminated, denotes killing dontchaknow), two employees are now employment challenged because they sent out an email with less provacative content than this young lady wrote in her creative writing.

• The teacher is duty bound to report thing like this. If they didn’t they place their job in jeopardy.

• The administrator overreacted - big time. 30 years ago, this bonehead would be fired (I know, I know, fired is also shooting related) for expelling a student for something like this.

• The student had an appeal hearing before some school tribunal. Good luck with that.

• I don’t know enough about the specifics of the lawsuit to comment on the judge throwing the case out. Of course, someone can pour hot coffee in their lap and win $100 million from McDonalds, so who’s to say what is a legitimate lawsuit anymore.

• The best thing that happened in all of this sorry episode is that the young lady is now attending a private school.

• Finally, the parents sued because they ran headlong into a bureaucratic nightmare. What most people don’t understand is that the system is set up to protect itself - and to he11 with any teacher, student, or parent who gets in it’s way.

By Lisa B.

August 3, 2006 07:38 PM | Link to this

I don’t see much consistency in how school rules are applied to various students across the state or even in the same system. I am certain other students have committed far worse rule violations than Rachel, and received much less serious consequences. In my own school system, I have seen administrators go balistic when an elementary child carved a wooden ruler into a pointed object, yet refuse to call the police when another elementary boy hit and kicked a teacher and an administrator numerous times, inflicting severe bruises. Some kids get away with cussing out teachers, while other children are suspended for calling classmates names. I guess complete consistency is impossible, but schools need to do a better job every day, instead of just occassionally making an extreme example out of a student. I would be more supportive of the judges ruling against hearing Rachel’s suit if schools didn’t continually ignore equal or more severe infractions.

By Missus

August 4, 2006 09:51 AM | Link to this

(Please correct me if I am wrong about these facts…) So the teacher confiscates or seized Rachel’s journal because it was disrupting class. To my knowledge the story her classmate was reading was other than the story in question. So the teacher must have been riffling through this girl’s private (i.e. not school sponsored) belonging in order to have gained access to the “sufficiently disturbing” story. This alone makes me uneasy. Forget about freedom of speech, because this girl was NOT making her journal PUBLIC (if anything, just the story immediately open on the classmate’s desk). The girl’s private property might have been correctly confiscated for causing classroom disturbance, and as such disturbance is the ONLY charge for which she should be punished, IMO. It was the nosy teacher who stepped all over this girl’s right to property and privacy by reading through (without consent) what obviously was not school material. I think it’s a shame to maintain precedent whereby teachers are above and beyond mere decency and respect of (let alone constiutional rights to) personal property even in a public setting. A teacher reading a student’s confiscated private journal is similar to a teacher eating a student’s confiscated apple… it obliviates that object from status as personal property of the student.

Unless I have the facts of the case wrong…

By Missus

August 4, 2006 10:08 AM | Link to this

In light of my last post, the teacher was in the wrong for even reading the journal. But given that it did happen, even if the journal happened to have been school property as part of a writing class, the “sufficiently disturbing” story could in no way have been fairly examined alone without the context of the other stories. If Rachel also wrote a story about a dream where a math teacher is abducted by unicorns or aliens, I wonder if the poor kid would have been charged with conspiracy to kidnap…

By Karen Armsby

August 4, 2006 10:10 AM | Link to this

Missus, If Rachel wanted to keep her journal private, she should have left it in a private place, at home or in her backpack, and not shared it with a friend in the classroom in front of the teacher. The teacher had the right to confiscate it and to look through it. Rachel is the one who needs to learn respect for the teacher and classroom. Rachel should have had her textbook out, not her private journal. And a journal is not the same as an apple.

By SET

August 4, 2006 10:50 AM | Link to this

Missus: It’s thinking like yours that is getting these kids in so much trouble. Karen is right about Rachel taking the thing to school in the first place as being the start of this disaster.

Your argument reminds me of foolish defendants who are out doing wrong then whining about the cop not having a search warrant. In the vast majority of incidents, no warrant was needed to do what the cops do. These children are in no position to bet their futures on having a correct application of search warrant law. They have no business with the booze, dope and weapons in the car in the first place.

Anytime keeping these kids out of trouble hangs on a suppression of evidence motion you have already lost the battle - it’s just a matter of which case they go down on.

The kids need better supervision and better parents. And the world does not revolve around them and their fantasy “rights”. Stop thinking this way - it won’t help them.

By luvs2teach

August 4, 2006 10:53 AM | Link to this

Maybe SET can help us with this one…

I was doing a brief google search on children’s right to privacy in the classroom. I know we tell the students that they have no expectation of privacy in regards to their lockers, and we have ton have them sign paperwork stating that they understand that.

One thing I found on a site called LegalWatch, was the following:

“Finally, faculty should be aware of changes to FERPA made in the USA Patriot Act, which makes it easier for the offices of the U.S. attorney general to get court orders to obtain educational records relevant to an investigation or prosecution of terrorism. Once an institution is presented with a “terrorism” court order, it must disclose the requested records. The institution need not obtain the consent of the student or parent, notify either party that the disclosure has been made, or maintain a record of the disclosure. Moreover, the act gives institutions immunity from liability for disclosures in response to such court orders.”

Interesting in light of some of the other references to 9/11…

I’m still searching.

By teach overseas

August 4, 2006 10:55 AM | Link to this

I think we as a society have to examine our percieved “safety at all costs” mantra.

In the name of safety:

Kids are thrown out of school for writing a story.

Kids carry cell phone with their parents permission against school rules.

Kids have no good playground equipment on which to hang.

Doors are taken off bathroom stalls.

Children must walk silently to and from class.

Peanut butter sandwiches are forbidden in school.

Some parents seems to think that if there are enough rules, enough regulations and enough “accountability” than their children will be guaranteed safety. Is this a realistic goal? Is this even a desirable one?

By teach overseas

August 4, 2006 11:00 AM | Link to this

And for those of you who send your children to private school where “this kind of thing doesn’t happen…” Keep in mind that she is some private school right now.

By luvs2teach

August 4, 2006 11:06 AM | Link to this

SET - I just read that in 1992 there was a case in CA where three students were allowed to wear or flash gang symbols in their yearbook pictures? This fell under “freedom of speech” and wasn’t considered disruptive.

Wow.

By luvs2teach

August 4, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this

From one I’m reading, a lot of the law is precendented on a 1969 case, Tinker v. Des Moines School District, where kids were protesting the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands. The court ruled famously, “Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.” However, and it’s a big however, is the test of whether the expression “manifestly disrupted the conduct of school.”

There was another key case, Kuhlmeier v. Hazelwood School District, where the Supreme court overturned the lower courts rulings concerning what schools can and can not edit, and this is cited in many other cases through the 90s basically reinforcing the idea of in loco parentis - that schools need to uphold the standards fo the community and protect the students entrusted to their care.

This is going both ways - these rulings are also being applied to teachers - a teacher was fired for talking about abortion in class and it was upheld under Hazelwood”

It’s not so simple as a “right to prvacy” or a “right to free speech” anymore, is it?

We need to give our kids better civics classes.

By SET

August 4, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this

luvs2teach:

Here’s the real problem. Higher IQ students may play urban guerrilla on occasion - but when they get bored they can always marry the bodyguard and retire on the trust fund. Or based on their higher IQ and related test scores and grades go to an Ivy League school and have a higher earning power to match their IQ.

When Jose and Josefina get themselves photographed flashing gang signs - and every single Police Department I have ever dealt with purchases the local high school yearbook each year - our lower IQ kids have set themselves up for an eventual take out when their lower IQ gets them caught dealing drugs, using drugs, or whatever. Sad but true.

The fantasy rights our foolish and improvident appellate courts have tried out from time to time - all of which are also loaded with exceptions the students never bother to learn (think “fine print”) has the effect of giving the low IQs enough rope to hang themselves with.

And as if that’s not bad enough the pendulum swings the other way without fail so that the so called rights from one decade become the exception to the rule the next decade.

Teaching children that the world revolves around them and their pleasures is a road to ruin. This is what liberals have done. It doesn’t last. From the free love days of the 1960’s and the civil right excesses and the Welfare State we now have a whole bunch of people who are not going to wear well. You may have heard of warnings that if you run all the time you will eventually fall down and smash your face. Yes, you have a “right” to run. Go to it.

Look at some of the posts I did above about the radically increased penalties CA has enacted to decapitate unwary criminals. The Feds and other states are doing the same. If kids play with fire they are going to gey burned and high school kids are playing with Napalm. Be it STD’s, Drugs, Violence, or relationship dynamite - they’re playing.

Have you examined the photos the kids are carrying around on their cellphones?

So regardless of what they might be able to get away with from time to time I’d prefer to train them to be thoughtful and careful and not try to push the limits of “their rights”.

By Leia

August 4, 2006 12:31 PM | Link to this

Missus - your thinking is warped, and since Karen and SET have already addressed this - I’ll move on.

If the “personal journal” contained information that Rachel was thinking of suicide, would you still think that the teacher didn’t have the right to read it? I think not!

Additionally - we also have the right to go into their computer directories at school! I regularly go through and see what’s in there. I’ve found software designed to circumvent the firewall on the computer network; I’ve found notes from girls arranging to meet boys when parents aren’t at home; and I’ve found parent’s credit card information! This last bit of information was being sold to other students! I guess you think I was being “nosy” and shouldn’t have called the parent about that one too - huh?

By C.R.H.

August 4, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this

Does anyone else remember hearing about a teacher who got in some trouble for having nude pictures (of himself/herself??) on their cellphone? Some students stole the cellphone and saw the pictures. I think they also showed the pics to a lot of other folks too. Why is it that a teacher gets canned for something that should have been private but students expect their “privacy to be respected”? And keep in mind, the cellphone was STOLEN from the teacher’s desk or purse, not rightly confiscated for being disruptive or left out in the open! Parents and some other people need to take the stick out of their…

By Missus

August 4, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this

SET: Police don’t “need” warrants only in situations where it is obvious or clear that there is suspicion enough to warrant a search. That is the whole idea behind the practice & theory of the warrant system, to help ensure that police have reasonable belief to suspect the accused of some illegal activity before infringing on a person’s right to property and privacy.

So explain to me how the teacher would have reasonably felt suspicious of the journal of a 14yo girl?

In your example of police searching a car without a warrant to find booze, weapons etc. there must still be some reason for having pulled the car over in the first place. Or there could be a practice of general random car searches similar to aiport security searches. And keep in mind that often times the police exercise illegal racist profiling to justify their reason for suspicion… And furthermore, there are vast diferences between incriminating a person for violation of law (i.e. possession of weapons, drugs) and incriminating a person for some maybe would-be future violation of law (i.e. Guantanamo Bay). The latter is a dangerous practice in that the accused cannot ever prove their innocence. [Thanks Bush!]

I also don’t believe that it was a mistake on Rachel’s part to simply bring the journal to school. The only mistake she made was in disrupting the class (if that even happened) by letting her classmate read a story from it during class time. Again, it would take a lot of convincing for me to believe for a second that the teacher had any sort of rational reason to suspect the journal contained any “terrorist” or “threatening” intimations and thus he/she would be justified in searching through Rachel’s personal document.

Let’s replace the personal journal with a photo album of a girls’ pool party. The teacher confiscates the album because it’s distracting/disrupting class time. I think most people would deny that the teacher has every right to look through the photos. How does this differ from a student’s journal or writing?

I am defending the evidence process because it crucially upholds one of the most basic rights to property and privacy. Even if Rachel’s story was deemed “sufficiently disturbing” and thus the actions of the school become ‘justified,’ I fail to see how or why the teacher evades responsibility for having infringed upon a person’s private property without justification. The end does not justify the means. All I’m saying is that what is more sufficiently disturbing to me is the complete oversight of this basic constitutional violation by the teacher.

Clear constitutional infringement by adult teacher v.s. unclear, subjectively “sufficiently disturbing,” dream story unduly extracted from the private literary journal of a 14 year old (whose only clear misstep was disturbing the classroom.)

Do you see my point?

By Missus

August 4, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this

Leia: computers are property of the school and so teachers have every right to access. The students should know (through being told) that there is no right to privacy for those directories, in the same way that a company has right of access to their employee corporate e-mails (part of the business and not for personal use.)

As far as being responsible for reporting on suspicious or dangerous activity of a student, of course that is your duty as a teacher. And if you have reason to suspect a student of being suicidal etc. then I would say that warrants search of even their private belongings. Absent of this reasonable suspicion, the privacy of a student’s personal belongings NEED TO BE RESPECTED.

By Missus

August 4, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this

THE BILL OF RIGHTS (Constitution)

Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Whew, okay. I added the italics for emphasis. Enough for today! :]

By Karen Armsby

August 4, 2006 02:37 PM | Link to this

Missus, Again, Rachel made her journal public by sharing it at school, so she could not reasonably have had any further expectation of privacy at that point. It was the content of her journal that was alarming and the reason for the disciplinary action by the school. Leia raised an excellent point; how would the teacher know what was in the journal, such as suicidal thoughts, drug sale accounts, or plans to kill the teacher, if she had not read it? Rachel is a minor, and the school does have a duty of care over their students. The teachers are not police officers, don’t need a warrant, and we parents hope they will keep an eye out for the potentially violent or suicidal student in their care. Common sense and local remedies were called for here, not a federal free speech case.

By Carrie

August 4, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this

Generally, on the first day of class, teachers state that if they catch you passing a note (or journal) during class time that they will take the note and read it themselves and maybe read it to the class. Rachel knew what to expect when she passed it around.

Did the school overreact? Probably, but this is a good lesson for Rachel on understanding rules and regulations and following those rules when in school.

By SET

August 4, 2006 03:33 PM | Link to this

Missus:

Your thought process is dangerous. If you teach children to think like this most of them will not survive in this Brave new World.

Be patient with me and I’ll try to make my point.

If you have children - or adults acting like children - thinking that that can do wrong and get away with it because the law makes it too difficult to detect, catch and punish them - this is a recipe for disaster especially for lower IQ people.

Martha Stewart is no dummy but her actions led to a financial and personal disaster because she was doing something wrong, then covered it up by committing further crimes, then shot her mouth off about herself in conversations with the investigators and the Grand Jury rather than serving cake and taking the fifth. As a former stockbroker Martha knew about the rules and how trading patterns are investigated. She was so full of herself she didn’t keep a lawyer at her elbow when the Feds came investigating - because she thought she knew the law and was sufficiently covered. She should have plea bargained also. Pride….

Quote the Constitution all you want. If you are doing wrong and do it often enough you will have problems and it’s hard to remember all the exceptions to the general rules during a running battle involving yourself. I see people trying to quote the Constitution with misbehaving teens - they get to watch their kids go to prison (if not on case 3 then on case #5)

What happened to this girl Rachel is just a mild taste of what is waiting for our public school kids if they go roller skating on the freeway while talking about their rights of way. School kids are not competent to learn and apply law either offensively or defensively. You can try to teach them but you cannot make them safe by teaching them this week’s appellate law.

We are supposed to be teaching them to be careful, thoughtful, and to mind their manners and how they present themselves to others. This includes not taking any personal diaries to school or putting them on the internet - especially the ones discussing their dreams or whatever about killing their math teacher.

See the distinction?

This has echoes of the argument about teaching sex ed vs abstenence. I’m not going there in this post. But you can understand why the abstention people feel so strongly - they doubt kids can apply and use sex ed enough to stay out of trouble. And then there’s the issue of IQ - which is the elephant in the room most educators refuse to see.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. And teenagers are some of the most stupid, impulsive and hormone driven people on the planet. Our energies at the secondary level need to be greatest in behavior modification and control - not telling them they might be able to handle napalm and not get burned (or burn others).

By holdingAJC"accountable"

August 4, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this

It is beyond” mindboggling that we are having a debate that a school system went “too far” in terms of discipline when *nothing could be further from the truth.

When it comes to discipline we have completely, totally, utterly failed in the public schools. This is nothing but a red herring…maybe the system looks foolish, but notice nobody is asking about the literally tens of thousands of real disipline problems in this state.

Interview the teachers at that school about the chronic discipline problems that are not covered by the media…then you get a story worthy of a blog.

By SET

August 4, 2006 04:07 PM | Link to this

typo above on para 3, …thinking that they can do wrong…

Sorry!

By C.R.H.

August 4, 2006 04:29 PM | Link to this

I think the point that Missus seems to be missing is that this kid wasn’t denied her “right to free speech”. Nobody told her or tried in any way to prevent her from “expressing herself” in her writing. She was disciplined for bringing the inappropriate material into the school and disrupting class with it. Here’s an interesting twist on this tale…What if I (former teacher) had written a “story” about how I want to kill some of my students and even named some of them by name? And what if I had brought that document to school and a student removed it from INSIDE my desk? Using the above example, how do you think the kids named in the “story” and their parents would have felt about the situation?

By holdingAJC"accountable"

August 4, 2006 04:50 PM | Link to this

CRH…that is an excellent point. The panties of all the apologists would be in a collective wad if a teacher had written such in his/her “private journal”.

But you did mention the word “discipline” and as such you have *severely” bunched up the panties of all the state’s educrats…

PS Wrote to Kathy Cox: she basically said discipline is not a problem in this state (laws are in place) and if it is at a certain school, talk to that school’s principal. This from a former teacher?!

I’ll be holding my nose and voting for Majette…

By SET

August 4, 2006 04:58 PM | Link to this

CRH: Then we’d be comparing a grown woman to a 14 year old girl.

My point is that if we want these kids to make it in life they must be more disciplined as they move from childhood through adolescence. Less full of their rights and more aware of their responsibilities. And news flash for the high schoolers - I can defeat your “rights” rather easily and you’ll never see it coming. So behave and learn something.

By C.R.H.

August 4, 2006 05:12 PM | Link to this

SET, so what you are saying is that we can’t expect a 14 year old to know the difference between appropriate behavior and inappropriate behavior? I have to disagree. This kid should have known there was a chance that her journal (or whatever it was) could end up in the wrong hands. Theft is very common in schools. A notebook with juicy information would be the talk of the town so to speak…she should chalk it up to experience and learn to keep private things private. A very important lesson for any young person!

By Stephanie Kimble

August 7, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this

Speaking from experience, my opinion is that our schools either take things to far or they don’t take some things far enough. I feel the entire situation could have been handled with a conference with her parents and she could have been counsled on what her writing could have been construed as. It appears that the people in control are forgetting that these are just kids and all misbehaviour does not have to carry such stiff penalties. If our children do not make mistakes, how will they learn. I am not making light of the content but before we go so far as to “throw the baby out with the bath water”, we should make sure of the child’s true intent. All children who have opinions are not necessarily potential assassins. If they want to hold children accountable to the myriad and ever changing laws, they should make the laws a part of their curriculum. Adults have to accept that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but I feel that our schools are dangerously remiss if they feel that they can just pull a law out of the hat after the child has broken it. Put the laws in writing and pass them out at the beginning of the semester. Make sure all new students get a copy and then give them a test to make sure they got it. Schooling is not all about “reading, writin and rithmetic.”

By SET

August 8, 2006 12:29 PM | Link to this

Stephanie Kimble:

As the “children” get older we care less about their “intent” and more about what they have done. So when we are speaking of the older teenagers acting out they get punished for their deeds not intent - because they always “didn’t mean it!”.

This girl was 14 at the time so I basically agree with you in this instance. There is room for talking when younger children screw up. That’s why I dissaprove of the Zero Tolerance nonsense as used in the schools.