absolutely right. And who said this is a free country?
If I look towards the "old" europe, I never had nor heard of any "problems"
like that. But it has been several years since I went to school.
Our biggest issue was then if we could smoke on school-ground. legal age in
Germany was/is 16.
After our written finals we had a couple more weeks to prepare for verbal
tests. We brought beer and camping chairs and put them on the side-walk as
we only had a couple hours of class. We'd drink beer and get in class when
it was time.
Did we get in trouble? Not that I remember except some shaking of heads by
teachers. one joined us in a "bar/restaurant" after he was off.
Nope, didn't become an alcoholic either.
Good ol times
Michael
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 11:32:29 -0700, Craig Lalley <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>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 *
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
|
