Re: Re: Re: Intoxicated Tubists Declared Dangerous


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TubeNet BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Joe Baker on March 26, 2002 at 12:34:16:

In Reply to: Re: Re: Intoxicated Tubists Declared Dangerous posted by Chuck(G) on March 25, 2002 at 17:25:40:

I'd like to clarify my reasoning that kids in school do not have, and should not have, the same rights as adults.

We do not grant students completely free speech. A student whose speech is judged inappropriate receives disciplinary action from the school (which is, as you point out, the government). If we granted complete free speech rights, no one would ever get an education.

Up to a certain age, which varies according to the state, a student who leaves the school without permission receives disciplinary action.

Students are denied their right to bear arms. In the throes of adolescence, weapons would be a really big problem.

Students' rights to freely exercise their religion is often abridged. Some religious expression - preaching in the cafeteria, for example - can be highly inflammatory, and the school is not the appropriate place for it. Private prayer or reading of religious materials, or consensual discussions of religion do NOT fall into this category, IMHO.

The simple fact is, they are children, and they are in the presence of children. The school bears a responsibility to them that the government at large does NOT bear to the population at large. It is responsible for controlling their environment. That sometimes means metal detectors at the door, video cameras in the halls, monitors on the playground, locker inspections, and, sadly, drug tests.

As for ruining someone's life on a first offense, I'm generally opposed to that. But there should be consequences, and they should be severe. On a second offense, I'm in favor of alternative school (LONG term - at LEAST a year, typically more). A third strike tells me that this is a kid who has no intention of playing by society's rules, so there is no sense wasting time and money on him. He should be booted out the door and not let back in. I frankly have NO problem with the kid going on a list of drug offenders, because he IS a drug offender. Duh.
BTW, I completely agree with you on many of the 'zero tolerance' policies, because they do not allow ANY consideration of extenuating circumstances or prior behavior. There was a big stink here in the Dallas area a week or so ago, when an honor student who had never been in ANY trouble helped his grandmother move over the weekend. A bread-knife apparently fell out of one of the boxes (they were moving after dark Sunday) and was in the back of his pickup truck. It took a community uproar to keep him from being sent to alternative school. Circumstances DO have to be taken into account.

One final question: if the police catch my kid using -- or selling -- pot, should they just send him on his way, or should they "do the parent's job" by disciplining him?

Joe Baker, who hopes the police would bust his kid in that situation.


Follow Ups: