John,

You should have gone to the game with your daughter.

Your t-shirt could have read, "score with the senior".

-Craig

--- John Lee <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Well written, James.  I'll throw another one at you.
>
> My 16 year old daughter's sophomore high school class printed up T shirts
> (as every soph class does) with a cute "notice us" expression.  In their
> case, it was "score with the sophomores", or something to that effect.  It
> was not obscene or pornographic in any way.  It was a play on words.  While
> I don't advocate "scoring with sophomores" (especially my own daughter), I
> do think they have the right to say it.  The Asst. Principal made them take
> them off or turn them inside out at school, and told then they couldn't
> wear them to the football game that night.  My daughter disobeyed, wore it
> to the football game, was caught, and told to leave the stadium, which she
> did.
>
> I emailed the Asst. Principal to ask if my daughter had an attitude problem
> (my main concern...she doesn't...she's trying to fit in).  At the same
> time, I asked if her constitutional rights had been violated.  The response
> I got was the same as the example you site...a bunch of jibberish designed
> to avoid confronting the issue, which is the admins not knowing how else to
> handle "flirty" behavior.  Or this admin wanting to be the morals police
> (which she denied).  So they instead try to outlaw it, by sensoring what
> kids can and can't say.  And she openly admitted that the school district
> feels they are above the constitution and have to be to maintain order.
>
> The school also has a "Gay, Lesbian, and Transexual Club" with it's own
> yearbook page (was looking at it last night).  I could care less what
> someone's sexual orientation is, but I find that an interesting
> interpretation and contrast of the right to free speech and expression of
> views.  And it bothers me, hence my posting here.
>
> John Lee
>
>
>
> At 12:54 PM 6/3/05 -0400, James B. Byrne wrote:
> >On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 07:54:56 -0700, russ smith <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > > Back in the 1930's, politicians didn't use schools as pawns in naked
> > > political games.  "You want funding for more books?  Okay, implement
> > > this completely unrelated policy that my backers in the last
> > > election insist I get passed."
> >
> >This is a rather naive view of the past that discounts entirely the
> >elements of overt social control built into public education.  It
> >is recalled that the prevalent model of public education in the
> >west is Prussian in origin and was developed in the mid 1800s as
> >much to engender a populace possessing cultural and social
> >solidarity with the interests of the state as providing a more
> >technically adept labour force.  To that end much of what is taught
> >in schools, particularly with respect to history and civic affairs,
> >is conditioned by overt political considerations. Consider the
> >recent events in China with respect to Japan's revised history
> >textbooks and the vast gulf that separates European and American
> >treatment of both world wars in the classroom.
> >
> >It has always been thus, for all publicly funded and state
> >supported activities are, by their very nature, political in origin
> >and have political outcomes as their principal goal.  Even private
> >institutions, such as organized religions and some large
> >corporations, have overt social conditioning as an explicit part of
> >their education programs. There is simply no escaping this aspect
> >of education.  The contentious issues of social policy that are now
> >evidencing themselves over overt control of student behaviour is
> >more a slipping of the veil of respectability that formally covered
> >these facts with a veneer of self-denial regarding their existence.
> >
> >The real issue is the apparent degrading of social cohesion brought
> >about by many disparate factors, but which will most likely be
> >traced to vastly improved and inexpensive communications
> >technology.  As is usual in such intractably complex situations,
> >the desire for simple direct action promotes equally simplistic
> >solutions to the "problem."  A "problem" that everyone acknowledges
> >exists but which, strangely, no one can express in a lucid manner
> >that even a simple majority can agree with.  So we get such
> >inanities as "zero-tolerance."
> >
> >Well, zero-tolerance is ultimately an admission by authority that
> >the situation is no longer a problem, it has become part of the
> >environment, and that the difficulty of administering its
> >consequences has swamped the ability of the institution to deal
> >with it.  The result is that individuals are forced to bear the
> >iniquities of a system that is breaking down from its own weight
> >and lack of internal consistency.  It is a Potemkin village
> >approach to institutional reform.
> >
> >I give as an example of institutional cognitive dissonance a true
> >story, one that happened (is happening) to a close friend of my
> >son.  This youth was home schooled, so far as I can determine for
> >no terribly profound reason, and, as far as I can discern to no
> >great effect, good or bad.  He is intelligent and diligent in most
> >matters and a bit of a layabout when he can get away with it.  His
> >character is such that he is always welcome in my home and I am not
> >known to be a tolerant man.
> >
> >He entered the parochial school system here in Ontario (we possess
> >in this jurisdiction, as part of the original terms of the
> >confederation of Canada, a publicly funded Roman Catholic School
> >system) to obtain his high-school diploma.  He has maintained an A-
> >average in the college/academic stream.  He was active in school
> >social activities and was a volunteer stage-hand for the school
> >drama productions.  I say was because around 7:00 p.m. last
> >Thursday night, when he showed up at the stage door of the theatre
> >where the production was being staged, he was stopped by two
> >security guards and found to have in his possession a multiplex
> >pocket-knife of the kind commonly found as part of a Boy Scout's
> >uniform.
> >
> >Now, this is hardly surprising behaviour.  I carry a pocket-knife
> >on my person at all times and have done so since I enlisted in the
> >navy at 17, where it was REQUIRED.  However, the rules state that
> >students may not bring weapons to school and apparently in today's
> >society a pocket-knife can have no other function.  In this case
> >the young man surrendered the knife to security without much
> >thought and proceeded to enter the premises to carry out his
> >duties. In retrospect he would have been wiser to turn away from
> >the door.
> >
> >What happened next is the type of Kafkaesque nightmare that only
> >hierarchical bureaucracies are capable of. The security guards,
> >employees of a private company engaged by the school board for this
> >event, turned the knife over to a vice-principal of the school who,
> >on the next day, suspended the boy for 21 days which, in
> >consequence, means that he is not allowed to write his final
> >examinations.
> >
> >Now, I do not know how society is served by taking a year out of
> >the life of a young man for carrying an object that is not, in
> >itself, illegal to possess or carry and representatives of which,
> >without any doubt, were carried on the persons of a number of the
> >members of the audience that night, none of whom were searched.  I
> >further do not see how a multiplex knife can be considered anything
> >other than a tool unless it is actually used to threaten somebody.
> >I also have grave reservations about a system that administers such
> >draconian penalties without due process.
> >
> >I have no doubt that had that vice-principal been faced with
> >orchestrating a hearing and producing evidence before an impartial
> >tribunal who then would decide on appropriate action then this
> >situation would have been handled in a far more enlightened manner.
> >  I have observed that having to justify ones actions to those that
> >can overturn them has an amazingly moderating effect on ones own
> >judgements.  But, mainly because he did not have to answer to
> >anyone else, he took the action he did without much evident
> >consideration of the overall social implications. The sad fact is
> >that students are still considered as somehow less than human and
> >continue to be subjected to such arbitrary and callous treatment.
> >
> >My point is not that the boy should not have been confronted with
> >the issue of carrying a knife onto school property and the risk
> >that this action potentially posed to others.  It is that zero-
> >tolerance is simply a euphemism for intolerance and often serves as
> >nothing more than a shield for those that enjoy inflicting pain on
> >others while hiding behind the skirts of respectability granted by
> >institutional sanction.  It is at root no more than an
> >administrative convenience that permits the institution to evade
> >grappling with the complexity of the underlying issues and
> >difficulties by diverting the public with a great show of having
> >done something dramatic, notwithstanding that this something is
> >usually completely ineffectual if not actually counter-productive.
> >
> >When regulations harm the very people whose protection ostensibly
> >provided the rationale therefore, then what is actually being
> >protected is the people running the institution making the
> >regulations and not the persons in their care.  The disputes that
> >are going on within the public schools systems are mostly proxies
> >for the dissatisfaction arising from growing awareness that schools
> >frequently are not, in fact, the neutral and benevolent
> >institutions that they present themselves to be.  There is much
> >good in public education, but there is a great deal wrong with how
> >it is administered and it is not the students that are to blame for
> >that. I see no reason why they should be forced to pay the price
> >for our inadequacies as parents and as citizens.
> >
> >--
> >      *** e-mail is not a secure channel ***
> >mailto:byrnejb.<token>@harte-lyne.ca
> >James B. Byrne                Harte & Lyne Limited
> >vox: +1 905 561 1241          9 Brockley Drive
> >fax: +1 905 561 0757          Hamilton, Ontario
> ><token> = hal                 Canada L8E 3C3
> >
> >* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> >* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>
> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *