K-8.
Quakers have lots of Friends.
[:d&r:]
From my experience in private school, these sorts of rules generally do not pop up out of nowhere. There’s usually some incident that pushes things over the edge, and then Stupid Rule pops up as a way to make sure it doesn’t happen again. Banning them outright was probably just the easiest way for the principal to get rid of the problem.
I’m agree that its a private school and they can do whatever they want. They’re obligated to sever the best interests of their students, but they are free to interpret “best interests” however they please. And if there is no other decent school within a 20 mile radius, well, that doesn’t by default make them a public school.
I’d just like to point out that if your battery starts making noises like that, it’s time for a new battery.
Edited to add: Oh, and catholic schools, imposing harsh and restrictive rules on kids? How is this news?
Ok, I think we’re on the same page then.
No one is going to be sending “the SS” (or any similar group) into anyone’s homes. St. Hugo of the Hills is probably one of the three or four richest parishes in Detroit with a substantial membership of the highest executives from GM and Chrysler, (the Ford people tend to live farther South). There will be no home invasions of those folks.
My guess is that this got pushed through by some worried people with little clue and will probably be ignored–or swiftly overturned–by the majority of parents. They are (over)reacting to some recent news items:
I’m not anywhere near the MySpace generation in age, but from what I’ve understood of their crazy moon language, it doesn’t seem all that hard to set up a MySpace account.
So what’s to stop somebody from setting up an account for Suzy Derkins, then reporting Suzy to the school so she gets kicked out? It’s pretty obvious that this school is rather oblivious about how the Internet works; I wouldn’t expect they’d be clever enough to figure out who made Suzy’s ersatz MySpace page…
That sounds as if tey should be banning teachers from having MySpace accounts – or indeed having anything to do with the internet. Has this high school done this, I wonder?
Despite the rule, the kids will still have their MySpace pages.
And their parents are still using condoms and birth control pills.
As someone who attended a private high school (albeit a secular one) which frequently bucked with public school trends and did its own thing, I would still agree that this is a prurient, knee-jerk rule that is ill-advised for several reasons:
-
as the OP suggested, it does nothing to increase awareness and responsibility on the part of the parents or the students. Outright banning sites like MySpace does not teach SAFE behavior because it ignores the real issues - you shouldn’t give out too much personal information (like, addresses and phone numbers, etc.) and you shouldn’t chat with suspicious people. These things can still happen over the internet whether you use MySpace or not. Imagine, for example, that a kid gets into a bad bike wreck and wasn’t wearing a helmet. The neighborhood association bans bikes because they can be dangerous. However, this would ignore the issue that the kid might not have been hurt so bad had he been wearing a helmet, and thus when the other kids go roller-skating or whatnot, they weren’t taught to wear a helmet then as well because it was established that the BIKE was unsafe, not the behavior while riding it.
-
the rule extends into the home. I served on the student-faculty judicial committee at my school, which heard cases for serious infringements of school rules, and a VERY important deciding factor as to how to resolve the matter was whether the infringement occurred off-campus or not. For such things as alcohol and drug use, generally the rule of thumb was that if the student drank/smoked dope/whatever off-campus, but came to school under the influence, then they were subject to punishment, but ONLY because they came to school. If the drinking/drug abuse and its effects occurred entirely off-campus, then the parents would be notified and counseling suggested, but the school would not mete out punishment. Perhaps this type of thinking varies on a school-to-school basis (and I have no idea how parochial school generally handle off-campus activity), but I just wanted to point out that punishment of entirely off-campus actions is NOT an across-the-board thing at all private schools.
-
kids are smart, a lot smarter than some adults would like to believe. I suspect some will find loopholes in this rule (IM, anyone? You can have profiles on that, too, and I could see kids arguing over whether or not that constitutes a “website”), the rest having fun ratting out their friends the whole time, school administrators scrambling to amend the rule to cover more aspects of the internet, and everything going downhill from there. The internet is the domain of the young generations, and restricting them from using certain websites will ultimately not be as effective as teaching them how to safely use ALL of them.
Take away a child’s MySpace and he will be safe for a day…teach him how to avoid the predators all over the internet and he will be safe for a lifetime.
Miss Wormwood, I swear it was Calvin!
Look, i think the rule is fucking ridiculous.
But the fact is that the parents do have a say in the rules. As the OP’s linked article says, the school’s parents’ organization is fully on board with the new rule. And, as others have pointed out, if enough parents were adamantly opposed to this rule, the school would rescind it damn quick in order to prevent an exodus. Private school parents have what educational choice scholars call the exit option, whereby they can leave if they don’t like school policy.
Putting your kid in a private school is, in effect, a contract where you agree to certain conditions. If this were happening at a public school, i’d be all over it, but in this case i really can’t get too worked up, even though i think the school administrators and the parents are idiots.
I’m sorry, but there seem to be a few points missed here, perhaps someone can fight my ignorance.
-
Does the first amendment extend to minors? If it does, the rule isn’t just stupid, but unconstitutional.
-
Continuing point #1, Yes the school is a private institution and can make what rules it likes, however children rarely have a choice about where their parents send them.
-
The kids are often asked to sign a code of conduct, what if they choose not sign? I doubt it’s really an option. If for instance your child took issue with a specific stupid rule, would you pull them? Most parents I know wouldn’t. they’d either force their child to sign it of just sign it themselves.
No government entity is abridging their rights to speech or association, so the Constitution does not apply. (In addition to which, the Rehnquist Court decided that schools get to exempt students from most Bill of Rights protections, anyway.)
And?
Welcome to the world of childhood. When you reach the age of majority, you can impose the least number of rules you wish on your children, but society, supported by law and tradition, recognizes the rights of parents to impose rules on children.
Not a 1st Amendment issue at all. The government is not restricting free speech.
You answered point 1.
Kids might be asked to sign a Code of Conduct to show that they’ve read it. Minors cannot enter into legally binding agreements. The Code of Conduct would be binding on the parent.
The Supreme Court is just now deliberating about a school’s right to regulate the conduct of students off campus, in the “Bonghits4Jesus” Case. You probably already knew that, but I like to work “Bonghits4Jesus” in wherever I can.
And Jesus is totally stoked because of it.
Yeah. I was referring to the earlier decision on student Freedom of the Press (don’t recall the case right now), where the SCOTUS, instead of simply ruling that the school, as publisher, has editorial authority over the contents of the student paper, decided (in their strict construction, non-activist way) to write some new law that limited the rights of students to participate as citizens.
Thanks for clearing that up for me, I thought that might be the case.
Are not private schools responsible at some level to both the state and federal government for their accreditation? I thought that most recieved some funding from the state as well.
Apparently, minors do not have the rights that full citizens do so my other arguments are moot. :smack:
Yes, please note that, as tomndebb mentioned, Hugo of the HIlls is a very wealthy parish located in one of Detroit’s most affluent suburbs, and is populated mostly by GM and Chrysler executives. These people are NOT noted for their ability to think strategically or even logically. They are running their companies into the ground, slowly. It does not surprise me that the parents are ‘on board’ with a completely assenine rule.