The Glade 4.0

So a friend of mine has a 12 year old son. One morning last week the 12 year-old's Mom was straightening up the house. She handed him a key chain fob and told him to put it away in a drawer. Being the absent minded kid he is, he put it in his pocket and forgot about it.

Flash forward later in the day, and he is sitting in class. He reaches into his pocket and pulls it out. He is looking at it when the boy next to him grabs it from him and starts messing with it. Well, it turns out that the key fob has a flip out 1" pen knife. The boy that took it from my friend's son finds it, other kids notice and tell the teacher, the boy says it's not his and throws it at my friend's son. My friend's son gets sent to the principal's office and is suspended for 5 days. The principal said he should really have gotten expelled.

Ay-yup. Let's punish everyone in proper socialist fashion. To do otherwise would instill them with a sense of individuality.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Nothing to do with socialism, quite the opposite. They're teaching him to be aware of his behavior and to take responsibility for his actions. He's 12, I doubt he is unaware of the school rules.

_________________
This cold and dark tormented hell
Is all I`ll ever know
So when you get to heaven
May the devil be the judge

So accidently leaving a penknife in your pocket should equal a five day suspension or expelled? It's a one size fits all policy without review of the actual situation. It's not how the rule of law should be.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Actually, that's exactly how the rule of law should be. If A, then B. No grey; no mitigating circumstances.

The problem here, amusingly, is that people think bad laws should be tempered by subjective reason. Bad laws simply shouldn't exist.

_________________

No, that's no good. All laws are tempered by subjective reason. Always have been. Mandatory sentencing is retarded.

Then they are not laws.

_________________

We have juries in this country to decide if a person broke the law and then a judge defines the appropriate sentence for that situation as a understand it. We don't send all murderers to lethal injection(as an example not as an appear to fear or anything else), likewise why should we suspend or expell all kids who bring knives to school? Yes he broke school policy, a good school policy, but I don't feel his sentence lines up with the nature of the offense.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

The the problem is that the offense is improperly defined.

Bring a knife to school? Detention.

Brandish a knife in school? 3-week suspension.

Threaten or assault with a knife in school? Expulsion and criminal charges.

See how easy that was? We can make appropriate punishments without making them subjective and thus subject to whim, emotion, manipulation, or favoritism.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

You guys keep making an appeal to popularity or appeal to tradition and expecting me to accept it. I'd think, by the by, that after 10 years of posting here, you guys would stop doing such things. That said, the kid did not break a "good policy"; the policy is obviously bad if the impact is so disproportionate for the given offense. You guys are arguing for subjectivity and leniency as a solution to an axiomatic problem. Fix the rule; don't bend it and call it "Rule of law."

_________________

With Kaffis and Khross on this one.

Yes Kaffis that would certainly be better. Without a doubt. However that's not what we have in this case. We have bring a knife to school and get expelled or suspended if we are feeling generous.

Also I don't understand how stating how the justice system works is an appeal.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Because how our Justice System works in practice is neither ideal nor is it the Rule of Law; John Locke, Jeremy Bentham, the Elder and Younger Mills, A.V. Dicey and most Western philosophers since Kant contribute to the thing we call "The Rule of Law." If all citizens are subject to the law, including those who govern, then you live under the Rule of Law instead of Divine Right or other systems of authority. If the Law is fluid and mutable at the point of application, it ceases to be law: Locke wrote extensive tracts about that in his work on government and rights. And, to that end, most of our Classically Liberal philosophers and thought icons agree (our = Western).

The United States is not a country where the Rule of Law exists: e.g. our Congress has ALWAYS shielded itself from prosecution for criminal behavior while in office; our Congress recently just reinforced their exemption from insider trading laws; our President doesn't think the Constitution should constrain him as much as it does on paper, so he ignores it.

We do not live under the Rule of Law; we have not lived under the Rule of Law for a very, very long time.

As for juries and lenience, our system provides for a trial by jury because the jury is not the organization behind the law. A jury is a group of your peers who review the evidence and facts and determine your guilt and culpability for your actions (or the lack thereof) in a criminal trial (ignoring civil for the moment). A jury holds the right to nullify the proceedings; a jury holds the right to vacate your sentence or guilt; a jury can do lots of things that induce leniency into the Justice System. The Justice System and Laws themselves, however, must operate by a strict and stringent set of rules else it loses objectivity (in the sense that the law applies equally to all). The Jury is a check on government and the Justice System; it is not part of either.

_________________

You're probably technically right. I guess I see the jury process as part of the justice system, even though it may be a separate entity I'll see if I can't rephrase my arguments better in the future. I never claimed to be a master of subtext (quite the opposite really -see my title). However none of that as far as I can tell has anything to do with the fact that the schools are using "zero tolerance" to appear to be doing something about the serious problems, while accomplishing little and tripping up a lot of people, like the student in question, in the process. So I guess what I'm really thinking, if not saying (again sorry I'm not as wise as you), is that there should be some kind of review imposed on this case because the punishment is way off base for the nature of this particular offense.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

You're absolutely right that this disciplinary action should come under review, but that's partly because all disciplinary actions should be reviewed. Kaffis's suggestion for a more atomized list of offenses is one solution to the problem, although I'm more inclined to think the rules are reactive extremes that placate emotions in light of any real method of preventing Columbine or VT type incidents. That said, I think you're view on this is reactive and regressive: you're looking at the current outcome and trying to fix that particular outcome. My solution and objections originate with the system that produced the outcome. The rules resulted in a bad outcome for the school and the student. Now, as a general rule, bad outcomes are not necessarily proof that something is flawed within a system or rule set, but they can be indicators. In this case, the bad outcome is repeatable and should occur every time a non-material offense happens because it's a "Zero Tolerance" Policy. Since we've determined the rule set to be flawed, the correct course of action is to fix the rule set and provide whatever amelioration necessary to the unduly punished student.

_________________

Again true. This was a rant about this particular incident, so I guess that's where my focus was. Yes, the policy needs changed, and yes it will only happen again if they don't.

So what are we arguing about again?

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Eh, we haven't been arguing about anything. We're discussing a political/philosophical matter in the context of this incident. You viewed this incident and responded to this incident by trying to solve the apparent problem. I viewed it and responded by indicating that the apparent problem is not the real problem; then I explained the Rule of Law and discussed your clarification. And we had a conversation ...

_________________

They contribute to a thing they call the rule of law. You're appealing to authority here. Abstract ideas of "the rule of law" as absolute and immune to situational adjustment are unworkable and worthless. That's the problem with thinkers and philosophers. Anyone with the abiltity to survive while making their employment the business of sitting there and thinking about stuff has serious problems with understanding practical reality.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Hmmmms ...

A priest, a jurist, a physician, historian, an civil servant, and one teacher ...

None of the people I mentioned were employed primarily as philosophers or thinkers. That said, the "Rule of Law" is immune to situational adjustment and is absolute. I'm sorry you dislike that, but it happens to be the case. Seeing as how it's a Platonic Ideal and always has been. It's a term for distinguishing one justification for the right to govern with another. In fact, because it describes a particular social phenomenon, the only thing that would make it useless and unworkable is your misguided notion that the "Rule of Law" must flexible. Of course, I find it amusing that the law enforcement officer is the one suggesting discretion and flexibility in determining "Rule of Law".

_________________

Sorry this happened to your friend Aegnor

Yes, zero tolerance does suck especially with kids that have no intentions of doing anything bad, but this is just what we have to do. I know who my good kids are and I know the ones who are full of it when they feed me bullshit regularly. Your friend's son probably falls under the "good kid" category. Unfortunately, I would have to report it also if I was the teacher in the room. My job dictates I must because of zero tolerance or I could lose my job. The whole idea of it is that even with believing any story that your friend's son could have said still does not mean he didn't have intent in the eyes of the district or school that he is attending. That is my nice way of putting. " How do they know the kid isn't lying?"

They are protecting themselves from either A) another incident or B) a backlash from another parent for not doing anything. Most likely B. mostly for another two reasons so they don't take **** from other parents like "why didn't you do something about this?" even though that parent has no idea about the kid or "well my kid got 5 days for a pocket comb that looked like a knife, so it is only fair that this kid get the same." It really does boil down to fair and my kid. We today aren't able to weed out the "bad ones" from the "good ones" this is considered discrimination in most districts and they are avoiding a lawsuit.

I hate it! I currently have one of the worst kids ever and because she is labeled ES we have to keep her even though her record states numerous write-ups and I don't mean for stupid stuff like talking in class. This girl beats up other girls, she sexually touches the kids, she screams in class and constantly disturbs the rest of the kids who are also fed up with her and plead with me to kick her out of the room. For me to not have control and respect from a kid is rare even from the "problem" kids which really aren't it just is in the eyes of bad teachers. Parents have called the cops on this girl, they have written letters to our special education director, She has a file the size of a bible of write-ups. You know what she gets, she gets a PCA- Personal Care Provider to walk to class with her all day long, because mom says it is inconvenient for her to have her kid in the ES room at the other school because she doesn't want to drive there when we can't meet her needs in the regular ed classroom. You know why we have to comply? Due process and they are afraid if we don't cover every ave, then we get a lawsuit. IT **** SUCKS. Sorry to rant over your rant

I feel for you Aegnor it isn't fair and isn't cool either, but the whole system sucks.

_________________
"None is more important, none more legitimate, than that of rendering the people safe as they are the
ultimate guardians of their own liberty."- Thomas Jefferson

"Yeah, I'm rehearsing my poker face. I don't handle stupid well. *sigh*" - Farsky

How is this allowed to continue? I'm surprised the school isn't being sued by the parents for *NOT* kicking her out.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

LOL, you can accept whatever you want. The system we have set up allows for, and always has, flexibility in sentencing. Whether the law is broken or not is one thing, how you are punished for that is something else.

You argue for "Fix the Rule", but that's just plain impossible. Your implication being that an appropriate sentence must be worked into the law (or a standard for sentencing) for any scenario. It's not possible. What you end up with, is these retarded situations. Legislators make what they think is a good sentence, something pops up that shows it isn't, somebody is **** needlessly, and the solution is to change it. They change the sentence, something else pops up, someone else is ****, and the process repeats.

It's retarded.

Except you ignore the fact that subjective criteria can be and often is written into the laws themselves. Also schools have rules not laws.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

...walk into a bar. The bartender says, "What is this, some kind of joke?"

_________________

IDK about other states, but parents first action with this behavior can not be to sue a school for a child. Let me rephrase that a Public School for someone elses child really. Plus, it would be a district not the school. Technically they can, but it really won't do them any good. They would have to go directly through the parent of said child for that. They can go to our school board meetings and file complaints and if enough complaints arise then the child can be removed. I am the one telling the parents when they come to me to write letters to our special ed director and to go to the school board meetings, but they never do, some do but not many. We have plenty of parents who complain, but not enough to follow proper procedure and go where I tell them to go. Sorry to have say this, but we are lucky in my district if most parents know where our school board meetings are held, not to mention what they do.
Remember I don't get a choice about what children I get in my class. I get all your masses because we are public and if we follow proper procedure with the child and paper work other parents can't sue us. Again they can try, but it won't do them any good. We don't control the kid, we just recognize her individual rights as all the other kids. Sure we have parents that threaten, but after they talk to our district lawyer, he let's them know that it really is easier to go directly through harassment with the child's parent. They can try, but we have so much documentation on this particular kid and what we do to protect ourselves they wouldn't win, so you file the lawsuit against the parent is a much easier and simpler option.

As for suing the kids mother, our parents have no money for lawyers and they can't even take time off to come to a parent conference meetings, so they aren't going to spend the time to sit in court for a lawsuit. It is a shame that not more can be done about it. But the higher ups don't care! You know why? They don't have to deal with her. I do, the kids do, and our poor assistant principal who is a tough of nails woman can't even deal with her anymore.

You know the irony of the suing thing you mentioned was that the mother who's daughter this is that said it is "inconvenient for me to have her in another school." This was the first parent meeting she showed up to in like 3 years because we pretty much forced her hand to come and sign papers or we were going to send her kid regardless to the ES room and then would have to go to due process with her for neglecting to sign legal Emotional Support IEP docs.

It is a crappy system and I have more or less many crappy parents in my district no one ever wins and until there is a better answer for dealing with these situations then it will stay this way sadly. Personally, I don't want to be the person to do it either. I am happy in my own classroom when my door closes and I can block out for the most part crappy teaching, crappy higher ups, and crappy parents. Well not today. To prove my point entirely I am typing this from home today because a crappy parent sent their sick child to school, even though she is hacking up a lung on everyone in class, including me, and now I am at home today with a bad cold. Can i say something though to that parent? Can I reprimand them? NO! because I will have a the district come down on me. But that doesn't stop a day of pay lost because I had to stay home and take a sick day. That kid just goes on her merry way hacking all over the kids when they even ask me to move their seats.

Oh well

_________________
"None is more important, none more legitimate, than that of rendering the people safe as they are the
ultimate guardians of their own liberty."- Thomas Jefferson

"Yeah, I'm rehearsing my poker face. I don't handle stupid well. *sigh*" - Farsky