Re: Court hears "Bong hits 4 Jesus" case

Richard Morris <jrmorris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<aborgman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:tT3v3q07Is9rN3l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Richard Morris <jrmorris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"JimK" <jkezwind@comcastDOTnet> wrote in message
news:lnv703pv3ku2kqs6l669m97fb36d9u197f@xxxxxxxxxx
On 23 Mar 2007 15:39:45 GMT, <aborgman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Richard Morris <jrmorris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"JimK" <jkezwind@comcastDOTnet> wrote in message
news:0rk7031db3ivisvu27eilb858k74d95j0f@xxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 21:50:25 -0700, "Richard Morris"
<jrmorris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"JimK" <jkezwind@comcastDOTnet> wrote in message
news:43l6039jtupioih7qci3uatk5u8dfuq7i0@xxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 20:56:19 -0700, "Richard Morris"
<jrmorris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"JimK" <jkezwind@comcastDOTnet> wrote in message
news:9ii6031s06r9rjau9gr6utvlo25cvdja1n@xxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:38:58 -0700, "Richard Morris"
<jrmorris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"JimK" <jkezwind@comcastDOTnet> wrote in message
news:17i50312csrogdb4165h2qp1e14h2i9h4e@xxxxxxxxxx
On 22 Mar 2007 11:03:53 -0700, "marklaw"
<mkalina@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

I think there's a difference between "encourage attendance"
and
"require attendance", especially if the event takes place
outside
of
school property.

Of course, the student in question in this case didn't
actually
attend
school that day. I think that should be reflected in as
well -
while
you might be able to make a case to me that a student who was
dismissed and told he had to go to the rally is subject to
school
rules on speech I don't think I buy into the idea that a kid
who
didn't attend school that day should be under that
obligation.-
Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


That is a good observation that was addressed in the oral
argument
and
might lead to an ironic result. According to Justice Scalia:
"Because
you're both a truant and disrupter, you get off. Had you been
just
a
disrupter, tough luck."

First of all, *** Scalia. What I'd like to know is what was
the
alleged "disruption" that the student's banner caused? Did the
torch
carrier drop the torch and burn down the town or something? The
more
I
hear about this case the more I'm convinced that it has little
or
nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with drugs
and
religion, the juxtaposition of which scared the *** out of
some
tightassed conservative authoritarians.

I think that you are right that it really isn't about disruption
so
much
as
it is about promoting unlawful behavior. The court has,
historically
determined that it is undesirable to have students promoting
unlawful
behavior at school, thus they have not seen it as protected
speech.
And
they are cognizant of the issue ... remember the discussion early
in
the
minutes about whether it was the act itself, or it was what was
said
on
the
poster that was the issue?

I can't say one way or the other what was in the mind of the
school
official, but I doubt very much that it was the tightassed fear
of
conservativism. Could have been though ... we all know that
occasionally
school officials make the news with some really stupid action.


Of course, as the Circuit Court decision that I posted points
out,
the
whole issue becomes even sillier when you consider that personal
use
of marijuana in Alaska has essentially been legalized.

Whether or not marijuana has been legalized in Alaska, I would bet
a
paycheck that it is illegal to be in possession of it, or under the
influence of it, at school.

Consider the movement from oh, maybe 15 years ago that attempted to
establish schools as "drug-free zones". Despite the hype and
hyperbole,
there is value in keeping intoxicants out of the learning
environment.
There is a time and a place for stuff, and school isn't the time
and
place
to be high, for a variety of reasons. That is my opinion, and I
tend
to
feel the same way about the workplace.

If you buy that (and not everyone does), then you have to promote
it.
And
if you are going to promote it, then you need to discourage
contrary
messages. If you allow contrary messages, then you have to accept
that
possession and under-the-influence violations will increase. This
is
not
rocket science ... it is simply fundamental rules of adolescent
group
behavior.

This stuff isn't all that hard to figure out ... people just need
to
decide
what they want their schools to be like.


Do you think removing that banner did more harm or good in
discouraging student drug use? I agree that school is not the place
for drugs, nor should minors be using them anywhere. But all that
principal did was take an incident that would have had no impact
one
way or another and by overreacting she turned it into a cause
celebre
that will probably result in more drug use than less. I just think
she
lacked common sense in handling the whole thing. It's probably not
fair to judge her based on this one incident, but if this was
typical
behavior on her part, then she's in the wrong job.

My experience has been that students are great sociologists. They
study
adults very carefully, and draw conclusions based upon what they see.
If
they see that rules are generally fair, and enforced consistently and
fairly, then they are more apt to follow them. If they sense
unfairness,
then they may choose to rebel. If they sense that rules are laxly
enforced,
then they will be more apt to break them.

I have also experienced that there is typically great diversity of
opinion
amongst kids. Some would approve of the sign as a prank ... some
would
approve it as a bit of anarchy ... some would approve it because they
liked
the message ... some would disapprove it because they don't do drugs
...
some would disapprove it because they thought it mocked their savior
....
some would disapprove it because they thought it brought negative
attention
to their school.

What all might see, though, is that the kid made an
in-your-face-gesture
and
the principal responded without flinching. It is not clear to me
that
the
kid meant to be tweaking the principal ... he may have just been
looking
for
a TV camera and a chance to get on the news. But the principal, I
suspect,
read it as, "in your face". And I suspect that the kids came to the
conclusion that the lady is someone who will take action.

But them people need to decide whether they want the adults to be
that
kind
of leader.

You really think that if the principal had handled this in a more low
key manner that the rest of the students would have thought she was
lax in enfocing rules??

I can't say for sure, of course, because I don't know the parties, so
naturally I am speculating just as you are. However, I believe that
somewhere along the line someone noted that the student had a history
of
conflict with school officials, and that he was very intentional in
not
setting up his sign a mile down the parade route, but rather making
sure
that he was right across the street from the school. He was looking
for
an
audience, yep.

This is difficult to swallow considering that
it's taking the SCOTUS to determine whether any rule was even
violated.

Not at all. The principal made a decision that a rule was being
violated.
The result is a challenge regarding whether the principal made the
*right
decision*. And, there is question regarding whether or not the rule
infringes upon the students rights under the first ammendment to the
Constitution. That is a sublte but very important distinction.

If she had taken no action, or had handled the situation in
a more private manner, I doubt very much that any of the other
students would have paid any attention.

Possibly ... but that judgment is not consistent with how I experience
kids
in a group setting. It was my first inclination about how to handle
it
though: tell him to stuff the sign, confiscate it if he refused, and
have a
private conversation with him later about not showing your ass in
public.

They certainly wouldn't be
looking for the next opportunity to display a silly banner at a
parade.

So you think that the only manner in which kids challenge limits is to
display banners? That is a bit naive.

Do you think kids should be prevented from challenging limits? Egads, I
hope my kids never go to your school.

As I understand it, this particular student is now 23 years old and
he's in China teaching English. Doesn't sound like challenging limits,
especially unreasonable ones, turned him into a hoodlum.

This is hardly a compelling argument, Jim. Would you like to hear about
kids that I have known who spent major time challenging limits in high
school, and went on to do the same thing in adulthood--winding up in
prison?

Aaron does have it right, instinctively I think--it is about the rights
of
the individual weighed against the rights of the group, and where to draw
the line if one needs to be drawn. It is about the minimum requirements
needed to run a school

This is correct... with VERY heavy emphasis on "MINIMUM".

... and upon which side caution exists, if one needs
to err on the side of caution.

"err(ing) on the side of caution" IMO is usually just a trite
cliche for excusing some inexescusable intrusion into personal
rights.

Glad you see the world in such clear-cut terms.

If it weren't for the fact that 9 out of 10 times that phrase is
used it is in exactly that manner, it might be a bit more cloudy.
It ranks right up there with doing it "for the kids" as far as
buzzphrases for limiting rights.

--
Aaron
.

Loading