Not to shit on the Khan academy, I have no idea what they do or how they do it. Its just really naive to believe that just because you have the materials available, you also have the ability to teach.
There’s at least one state that specifically exempts any person from being charged with underage drinking if they’re bringing another drinker in for emergency medical treatment. The idea is they don’t want a teenager to be afraid to seek medical help for another teenager out of fear of being arrested.
Every now and then, I’ll idly daydream about how interesting it would be to live in America. Then I see something like this and go :eek:
If this idiotic beuracratic repressive nannyism keeps getting worse people are going to have zero tolerance for the government.
Just curious; what do people in counties or states with such rules/laws do when you have a family birthday, barbeque, wedding or even a family meal? Do you simply not invite children or young adults to the occasion? What is the definition of party that applies here?
If you’re going to pick up a friend who’s too drunk to drive home,maybe they will come out to meet you, or maybe they will stay at the party with a drunk’s sense of time, or maybe they won’t even leave until you arrive. Perhaps there isn’t even anywhere safe for someone - esp. a drunk person - to meet you on the road.
All this multiplied for teenage girls. Yes, you, drunken teenage girl, should stand, wobbling, on an unlit or barely-lit street (like most suburban streets) alone and waiting for a car. Much better than staying where you were.
Just pick them up at the house instead.
The publicity could be good or bad, but all this girl did was pick up a drunk friend. There should be no publicity to argue about.
So the law in PA requires her to have a crystal ball and know before arrival that alcohol is being served? Can you explain to me just how that works your honor?
It takes dedication and hard work to become Captain of a high school team. Missing 5 games and losing Captain is a huge deal for someone who’s put in so much work and time. This isn’t an intermural thing. It, along with her honor roll grades, are something strived for over time. Not only that, removing the Captain from the team screws the rest of the team! I don’t know what kind of college she was looking at, but this could not only hurt her scholarship chance, but can also hurt other team members.
But I guess she should have thought of all that before going to help a friend? (/sarcasm)
Half seriously, if it’s a high school party, I would assume alcohol will be present. Still a stupid requirement.
Everyone knows a crystal ball is worthless.
That’s what psychics are for. 
That’s what I was wondering. I’ve usually got a half bottle of rum knocking around - would my kids friends not be able to come over after school without risking arrest?
The idea of asking the drunken friend to stagger down to the curbside also appalls me.
The “lesson” she may have learned here could be, that it makes no difference if you are guilty or innocent, even decided by a court of so called “law”. Either way, you still face some sort of punishment, handed out by incompetent hypocritical zero tolerance bueraucrats. Let’s not even get into the discussion about the things they probably did as kids and got away with.
And you live in what Utopian paradise?:dubious:
Yes, and we need just one Zero Tolerance policy, which is asked of School administrators “Does your school have any Zero Tolerance policies? Yes? Well, we hire you for your judgment. You’re fired. Zero tolerance!”
Only among the people who think zero tolerance is a good solution for a problem. Fortunately most of us will maintain a sense of perspective and realize this is a problem that needs to be fixed not a call to overthrow the entire system.
In fairness, some of the reason that there ARE zero tolerance policies is that if there aren’t, then any time you try to punish any kid for any reason, you risk being utterly barraged by parents trying to insist that you make an exception for their kid because (some random reason), going on and on, threatening to talk to the school board, camping out outside your office, and so forth. With a zero tolerance policy you can just say “I’m sorry, your hands are tied” and get on with it.
Not that I support them, but I can see a legitimate argument for how they make it significantly easier for people to actually get their job done.
I hear ya, but nobody said their job would be easy.
Every rule involves discretion, even zero tolerance rules, since at a minimum it must be determined if the zero tolerance rule even applies (Exhibit A, this OP). Zero tolerance rules are supposed to eliminate a particular kind of discretion: consideration of the student’s history of the severity of the extenuating circumstances of the particular rule violation in determining the punishment. Everyone who does X gets Y. That certainly does have its benefits and there’s nothing inherently wrong with it.
Unfortunately, zero tolerance has come to denote stupidly broad prohibitions like “nothing that looks like a gun,” or “can’t be in a house that has alcohol.” The problem in those cases is not really the zero tolerance nature of the application of the rule, but the stupidity of the scope of the rule in the first place. If you want to expel every kid who brings a gun to school, then good. But that doesn’t mean you don’t offer a definition of “gun” that is reasonable. Similarly, if you want to punish any student caught drinking, that’s dandy. But don’t craft the rule in a way that it captures someone who not only was not drinking, but was actually helping avoid harm to those who were.
I used to tell people that part of my job of being the boss was looking somebody in the eye and telling them “no”.
If you need a crutch like a set of rules that take away your decision making ability, then you don’t have the right mentality to be the boss.
Isn’t part of getting more pay as you move up the “responsibility scale” supposed to be because the job gets harder? And that more judgement is needed?
Maybe, (for example) at the teacher level it is fine to have something like “any instance of physical contact gets X punishment” - but at the principal level this can be over-ridden? And then at the school board level it can be over-ridden again, based on, ya know, judgement?
Why are people (seemingly) getting more afraid of personal judgement?
Just the opposite. You now have to suspend a kid for a 1" tiny toy gun, for Midol, for wearing an American flag shirt, wearing a religious symbol, and other silliness, many of which have lead to lawsuits, which are *very *expensive and time consuming. Not to mention schools are for learning and kids can’t learn while suspended.
http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/05/15/suspension-ban-willful-defiance-los-angeles