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 *